Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Pali Rohár]

On Wednesday 17 January 2018 18:07:59 Pali Rohár wrote:
> Ok, that you for opinion. I drop init script and include upstream udev
> rule which replace it. And because there is no feature request for
> splitting package into more, I let it as is to not complicate it.

Updated package is there: https://mentors.debian.net/package/udftools

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Pali Rohár]

Ok, that you for opinion. I drop init script and include upstream udev
rule which replace it. And because there is no feature request for
splitting package into more, I let it as is to not complicate it.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.ro...@gmail.com

Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Ian Jackson 

There is still no need to Cc folks on Debian lists unless explicitly
requested.

> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts"):
> >] Pali Rohár 
> > 
> > > What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package? Users
> > > who do not need packet writing configuration and only need tools for UDF
> > > filesystem would install only udftools package.
> >
> > udftools is a tiny package, splitting it seems a bit meaningless.
> 
> AIUI the point of splitting it would be to allow people to avoid the
> udev rule.  It is often a good idea to separate packages containing
> quiescent utilities from packages containing automatical-launching
> configuration etc.

There doesn't seem to be anybody asking for that in any of the open
bugs, AFAICS.  It's trivial to mask a udev rule if you don't want it as
well, so while it's sometimes reasonable to do what was suggested, it's
not a given.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Ian Jackson]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts"):
>] Pali Rohár 
> 
> > What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package? Users
> > who do not need packet writing configuration and only need tools for UDF
> > filesystem would install only udftools package.
>
> udftools is a tiny package, splitting it seems a bit meaningless.

AIUI the point of splitting it would be to allow people to avoid the
udev rule.  It is often a good idea to separate packages containing
quiescent utilities from packages containing automatical-launching
configuration etc.

> > But such thing probably needs more discussion or announcement in
> > changelog... etc... as existing system configurations needs to be
> > updated.
> 
> If you do split it, udftools need to depend on pktsetup for the next
> release at least so people don't lose that functionality.

Presumably that's OK because the previous udftools package did this
automatic stuff too, only a different way.

FTR I don't have an objection to dropping the init script in favour of
a udev rule.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Pali Rohár 

> What do you think about moving pktsetup into own binary package? Users
> who do not need packet writing configuration and only need tools for UDF
> filesystem would install only udftools package.

udftools is a tiny package, splitting it seems a bit meaningless.

> But such thing probably needs more discussion or announcement in
> changelog... etc... as existing system configurations needs to be
> updated.

If you do split it, udftools need to depend on pktsetup for the next
release at least so people don't lose that functionality.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Re: udftools, pktsetup and init scripts

[Marco d'Itri]

On Dec 28, Pali Rohár  wrote:

> I think it could make sense to remove init script and replace it by new
> udev rule and move both (udev rule and pktsetup) into own binary package
> pktsetup.
Yes: udev is de facto mandatory nowadays if you have anything dynamic, 
so do now waste time with boot time hacks.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature