One person not using the latest toolchains? At any rate, can someone provide a helper change from the past for PACKAGEGROUP like changes?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer < [email protected]> wrote: > On 29 July 2013 15:34:29 Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, it should be disabled by default based on the fact most people do not >> need this "rfkill" what even upstream has been disabling, and it would be >> only enabled for those two utils out of the several thousand out there, >> anyhow. >> > > It was disabled just because of one guy known to notoriously use outdated > toolchains on recent packages. But OK, I'm out of this whole discussion. > > Cheers, > > >> I am just repeating myself as the same is questioned again, again, and >> again. >> >> ... or you really think that "rfkill" is needed for the majority use cases >> out there? >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 29 July 2013 14:20:05 Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Oh, it is actually also in danny. I was looking into the "files" >> >> directory, >> >> but it is in the other. >> >> >> >> It is definitely not in denzil though. >> >> >> > >> > Perhaps disable it only in the layer that pulls in these pre-2.6.31 >> kernel >> > headers? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Only _one_, not two. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 11:22 +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> >> >> > I disagree. This change should not have gone in the first place >> >> >> > causing the regression for the users. Please be consistent with >> the >> >> >> > history. >> >> >> >> >> >> If this was a recent change then I would have some (limited) amount >> of >> >> >> sympathy for your position. But the commit you are complaining >> about >> >> >> has been in the tree for over a year, and it was presumably >> included in >> >> >> at least one if not two of the most recent stable releases. >> >> >> >> >> >> p. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > Sent with AquaMail for Android >> > http://www.aqua-mail.com >> > >> > >> > >> > > > Sent with AquaMail for Android > http://www.aqua-mail.com > > >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
