I disagree. This change should not have gone in the first place causing the regression for the users. Please be consistent with the history.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Phil Blundell <p...@pbcl.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 11:01 +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > No, that was intentional. That is why the change has been updated. > > > > > > I can update the commit message if that is what you wish? > > As a general rule yes, please always make sure that the commit message > describes what the patch is actually doing. > > But in this particular case, your new patch seems to have more serious > problems since it will cause rfkill to silently disappear for many > people who do currently have it. > > If your distro selects a toolchain which doesn't contain the necessary > bits to support rfkill then it seems as though the appropriate course of > action would be to either: > > a) patch rfkill so that it does build with your headers; or > > b) introduce a PACKAGECONFIG option for busybox to turn off rfkill even > if it would naturally default to on, and set this in your distro > configuration; or > > c) just add your own .bbappend for busybox to do what you want. > > p. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
