On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 18:33 +0200, Martin S. wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 10:38 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> > > On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > >> Olivier Galibert wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > > Is anyone prepared to commit to
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 10:38 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> > On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> >> Olivier Galibert wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Is anyone prepared to commit to including a pairing utility and the
> > udev rule as part of li
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> Olivier Galibert 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
On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Olivier Galibert 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 package will disappear bec
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:39:46PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Olivier Galibert 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 pac
Olivier Galibert 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 package will disappear because ipheth has been accepted
upstream and the kernel team
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:14:07PM +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
> How about this then libimobiledevice-utils supplying the udev rule
> and pairing utility, and providing a virtual package which "Provides:
> ipheth-support"? Maybe the provides bit is not required...
Why can't ipheth just depend o
On 27 April 2010 14:33, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul McEnery wrote:
>> On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. 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
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. 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 per
On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. 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 exist in some
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 exist in some package. That package
> > will need to be a de
"Martin S." wrote:
Hi,
> Why not add an udev rule to the ipheth package which checks for the
> "USBMUX_SUPPORTED" flag and the ipheth module being "added", then calls
> the idevicepairing tool to pair?
>
> Thus the ipheth module would simply depend on
> libimobiledevice-tools/-utils and the iphe
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 exist in some package. That package
> will need to be a dependency of usbmuxd (unless usbmuxd provides it).
> It cannot simply
On 24 April 2010 11:01, Peter Robinson 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 not s
>> 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 not sure that usbmuxd should
> have *libimobiledevice-util
On 24 April 2010 08:00, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Paul McEnery wrote:
>> 2010/4/22 Ben Hutchings :
>>> 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 pack
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> 2010/4/22 Ben Hutchings :
>> 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 in
2010/4/22 Ben Hutchings :
> 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 inclusion could
>
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 inclusion could
> > take a while, users (of Debia
On 3 April 2010 22:11, "L. Alberto Giménez" 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 the
>> maturity
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 21:20 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
> Hi Martin.
>
> Thanks for your input on this. I know there was a brief discussion on
> the topic of a kernel vs user space tethering driver, and speed was
> one of the topics. I recall a few claims being made about how much
> faster kernel
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 the
> maturity of ipheth, would it be fair to say that ipheth is the way
>
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 inclusion could
> take a while, users (of Debian at least) could start to benefit almost
> immediately since all
On 2 April 2010 15:11, "L. Alberto Giménez" 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 other bi
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 other bits and pieces in
> order to function. It requires the use
olved on Mac OS X and Windows by iTunes.
--- Martin S.
>
>
> --- On Thu, 4/1/10, Paul McEnery wrote:
>
> > From: Paul McEnery
> > Subject: Re: [libimobiledevice-devel] ipheth
> > To: "Martin S."
> > Cc: "Ben Hutchings" , "Julien BLACHE&
rom: Paul McEnery
> Subject: Re: [libimobiledevice-devel] ipheth
> To: "Martin S."
> Cc: "Ben Hutchings" , "Julien BLACHE"
> , libimobiledevice-de...@lists.libimobiledevice.org,
> "Debian kernel team" , "Daniel Borca"
> , "Dieg
On 1 April 2010 18:23, Martin S. wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 14:30 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
>> On 1 April 2010 14:07, Ben Hutchings 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
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 14:30 +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 14:07, Ben Hutchings 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
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Paul McEnery wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 14:07, Ben Hutchings 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
30 matches
Mail list logo
