On Thu, 12.11.15 10:46, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: > Lennart Poettering [2015-11-12 9:59 +0100]: > > THere's no point in shipping the non-binary version of the hwdb. The > > hwdb isn't a cache, it's a compiled version of the hwdb, and you don't > > the sources around for this. > > Won't you need it for udevadm hwdb --update, after you add a new > hwdb.d/ file? Or can we now have multiple compiled dbs, one shipped by > the package and one built dynamically by hwdb --update?
Well, if you do add those locally. But that's not a typical usecase really. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel