On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:23:12PM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote: > On 29 June 2017 at 15:04, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The otherday I ran powertop and it did rfkill to save battery, which > >> was particularly annoying because I had not installed rfkill(8) > >> package. > >> Fixing the immediate issue was relatively easy, but the ordeal made > >> me wonder if this tool could be moved to a package that is installed > >> by default to all systems, such as util-linux. > > > > [...] > > > >> What do you think, would the move and proposed updates be ok? > > > > I can't say I mind, and most of your proposed changes seem sensible, > > though I haven't reviewed them in enough detail to comment on them. > > Something that caught my eye here was comparing a string to _("all") > > which seems wrong, since that'd mean you'd have to type the translated > > version even on the command line? That seems really awkward (to put it > > charitably). > > > > However, at the same time, I have very little desire to get involved > > with util-linux as yet another project, so frankly I'd probably > > continue to "maintain" the current rfkill tool - which really hasn't > > changed in a very long time, and hope somebody else picks up > > maintenance of rfkill included in util-linux. > > Hello Johannes, > > Thank you for feedback. I removed the rfkill command strings from > translations, and gave hint to translators how to deal with them in > usage() output. Also in same go updates are rebased on top of > most recent upstream to get usage() --help and --version handling > done correctly. > > What comes to maintenance I am fairly optimistic util-linux is a > good home for the rfkill. Karel, what do you think? I have no problem with it, if Johannes agree with this step. We have definitely manpower to maintain it. Karel -- Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> http://karelzak.blogspot.com