On 27 April 2010 17:39, Julien BLACHE <[email protected]> wrote: > Olivier Galibert <[email protected]> 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 added it to our 2.6.32 packages. > > So there's only ipheth-utils left, containing the udev rules and the > pairing utility. If a pairing utility is also distributed as part of > libimobiledevice, we're left with just the udev rules, and at that point > it's just sane to ask ourselves where the udev rules belong. > > I think it's going to end up in libimobiledevice-utils at that point, > unless there's a compelling reason not to do that. A package for a > single very small file is a big no-no. >
Is anyone prepared to commit to including a pairing utility and the udev rule as part of libimobiledevice? If so, I guess we have a solution. The respective distro packagers can do the rest. Regards, Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
