On Fri, 17.10.14 15:44, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
Hello again,
the previous patch had a typo in the manpage (it said /lib/udev
instead of /usr/lib/udev at one place), and also forgot to adjust
systemd-udev-hwdb-update.service.in. Both done now.
However, the latter
On Sun, 19.10.14 14:13, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Ugh, I haven't seen your second message. There's something strange with
mail delivery -- I could swear that I've fetched everything before replying...
Sorry for the noise.
There's something really broken on fdo mail
On Sunday 19 October 2014 at 05:42:28, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
On Friday 17 October 2014 at 15:44:51, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello again,
the previous patch had a typo in the manpage (it said /lib/udev
instead of /usr/lib/udev at one place), and also forgot to adjust
Hello Ivan,
Ivan Shapovalov [2014-10-19 5:42 +0400]:
but this isn't possible AFAIK. The alternative would be to change the
Exec= to call hdwb --update --vendor iff /etc/udev/hwdb.d/ is empty.
I'm just an innocent bystander, but isn't it possible with these two
lines?
On Friday 17 October 2014 at 15:44:51, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello again,
the previous patch had a typo in the manpage (it said /lib/udev
instead of /usr/lib/udev at one place), and also forgot to adjust
systemd-udev-hwdb-update.service.in. Both done now.
However, the latter currently
Martin Pitt [2014-10-17 15:44 +0200]:
So ideally the condition would be
ConditionPathExists=!@udevlibexecdir@/hwdb.bin OR
ConditionDirectoryNotEmpty=/etc/udev/hwdb.d/
but this isn't possible AFAIK.
Hah, I stand corrected. So this could be
