On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE jbla...@debian.org wrote:
Olivier Galibert galib...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi,
Why can't ipheth just depend on libimobiledevice-utils ? It *is* a
functional dependency after all, even if they're not communicating
directly with each other.
The ipheth-dkms
On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. i...@sukimashita.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 00:38 +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:55:53AM +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
In order for the udev rule to execute *any* application which performs
the pairing, that application must
On 27 April 2010 14:33, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul McEnery pmcen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. i...@sukimashita.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 00:38 +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:55
2010/4/22 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk:
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 21:40 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 21:09 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
[...]
1. Keep the ipheth-utils package and drop ipheth-dkms when ipheth
makes it into the mainline kernel. Given that mainline
Since ipheth has now been accepted into the mainline kernel, I see a
couple of choices for the ipheth package:
1. Drop ipheth-dkms altogether.
2. Drop the dependency on ipheth-dkms in the ipheth-utils package.
My initial thoughts are to simply drop the dependency on the dkms
package, but ipheth
On 24 April 2010 08:00, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Paul McEnery pmcen...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/4/22 Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk:
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 21:40 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 21:09 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote
On 24 April 2010 11:01, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Was was the final decision of merging the small util into one of the
other packages and the udev rules into usbmuxd?
This was discussed a few weeks ago, but I don't recall anyone being in
overwhelming support of the idea. I'm
On 3 April 2010 22:11, L. Alberto Giménez agime...@sysvalve.es wrote:
On 04/02/2010 10:09 PM, Paul McEnery wrote:
[...]
Without wanting to say anything on
Bradley's behalf, it appeared as if he was in support of the tethering
driver being implemented in kernel space. That said, and given
On 2 April 2010 15:11, L. Alberto Giménez agime...@sysvalve.es wrote:
On 04/01/2010 10:20 PM, Paul McEnery wrote:
Ben, one of the reasons that I was slow to respond to the call to
integrate ipheth into the mainline kernel is that I don't believe that
it belongs there. It's far too dependent
On 1 April 2010 14:07, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
Paul,
I missed you talking about ipheth on IRC earlier.
I've seen the submission of ipheth on the netdev mailing list, and made
some comments on it there. If it is accepted, we can include it in the
Debian kernel packages and
On 1 April 2010 18:23, Martin S. i...@sukimashita.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 14:30 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
On 1 April 2010 14:07, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
Paul,
I missed you talking about ipheth on IRC earlier.
I've seen the submission of ipheth on the netdev
11 matches
Mail list logo
