Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-26 Thread Frans Pop
From debian-devel again. On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:18, Riku Voipio wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 06:10:23PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: I disagree. You compare a 11kB utility (sysctl) with a new 132kB package. You are comparing two completly different things. If we are to actually

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-25 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 25, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main rationale is that its init script offers offers a fairly clean and obvious way for users to set values in /sys at boot time. (Without the need for them to hack a local init script.) echo looks clean and obvious to me as well, and does not

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-25 Thread Frans Pop
This was discussed on d-devel, but did not make it to the BR. On Tuesday 25 July 2006 22:04, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Jul 25, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you choose to completely ignore the option (that was mentioned at least twice) to move the init script part to a separate or

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-25 Thread Frans Pop
And, just to be fair, this did not make it either. On Tuesday 25 July 2006 22:51, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h * Otavio Salvador [Tue, Jul 25 2006, 02:23:16PM]: Well then we might work reducing the code size but at least am I talking about functionality and that's important in my

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-25 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Ter, 2006-07-25 às 02:04 +0200, Frans Pop escreveu: My main rationale is that its init script offers offers a fairly clean and obvious way for users to set values in /sys at boot time. (Without the need for them to hack a local init script.) It's far away from actually being installed by

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-24 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jul 23, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As 2.6 will be the default kernel for Etch and /sys is playing an increasingly important role in system configuration, I was wondering if it does not make sense to add sysfsutils to base and thus install it by default on new systems. Which

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-24 Thread Frans Pop
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 01:42, Marco d'Itri wrote: Which packages actually use it, and why? What can it do that echo $VALUE /sys$DEVPATH/attribute and similar commands cannot do? What is the point of having an abstraction layer for a published and already widely used API? I object to

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-24 Thread Otavio Salvador
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tuesday 25 July 2006 01:42, Marco d'Itri wrote: Which packages actually use it, and why? What can it do that echo $VALUE /sys$DEVPATH/attribute and similar commands cannot do? What is the point of having an abstraction layer for a published and

Bug#379475: Fwd: Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-24 Thread Martin Pitt
Hi Frans, As 2.6 will be the default kernel for Etch and /sys is playing an increasingly important role in system configuration, I was wondering if it does not make sense to add sysfsutils to base and thus install it by default on new systems. It's a small and relatively harmless package,

Bug#379475: [Etch] Should sysfsutils be added to the base system?

2006-07-23 Thread Frans Pop
Package: base Severity: wishlist As 2.6 will be the default kernel for Etch and /sys is playing an increasingly important role in system configuration, I was wondering if it does not make sense to add sysfsutils to base and thus install it by default on new systems. It can be used for example to