On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:54:39PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I'm not going to be applying these patches for quite some time. I'd
> > much rather have packaging scripts that *know* they will be packaging
> > alongside util-linux-ng use --disable-libblkid, etc. so we don't break
> > things for folks who might need to build e2fsprogs for distributions
> > that are still using util-linux --- which at the moment still have the
> > vast majority of the installed base, and every so often people do
> > actually care about running updated filesystem utilities on an older
> > enterprise distribution.
>
> But you didn't accept those patches I sent either.
If I recall correctly the last set of patches unconditionally used
--disable-libblkid, and what I need is.....
> > ... at the minimum I'll want to make sure that the debian/rules file
> > packaged with e2fsprogs can build both for util-linux and
> > util-linux-ng for similar reasons, especially since Lamont hasn't
> > gotten back to us about potentially getting util-linux-ng packaged for
> > Debian yet.
So the patch ideal patch I'd like to see is one where you can toggle a
flag and debian/rules will either build for util-linux or
util-linux-ng. If you've sent such a patch, my apologies for
overlooking it, but as I recall the only patch I got made the
unconditional changes to debian/rules. When I commented on that you
said that you understood that was just a proof-of-concept patch, and
so I let things drop.
> I've done the packaging for him, it's just waiting on him to get back
> home to sponsor the uploads.
Are the .deb packages somewhere where I can examine them?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
