On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:35:31 +0100, Phil Perry wrote: > On 12/09/13 20:14, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I don't. That being said, this is a legacy branch, so we are only > > accepting bug fixes and trivial additions. Any change requiring a > > significant amount of new code would not be accepted, at least not by > > me. If you really want it in and plan to contribute more to the legacy > > branch then I'd rather create a subversion account for you and let you > > become the maintainer of the legacy branch. > > > > Frankly, if your users have to install a non-standard lm_sensors > > package, you might as well package version 3 and have all the support > > for new chips for free. > > That would indeed be preferable. > > I can build lm_sensors-3 packages for RHEL-5 but the main issue I see is > that other packages in RHEL-5 (e.g, kdebase, net-snmp) require > libsensors.so.3 whereas lm_sensors-3 provides libsensors.so.4. Is > libsensors.so.4 backward compatible or is this a likely show-stopper? Show-stopper I'm afraid. There's no form of compatibility between the two. > Maybe rebuilding these packages against an updated lm_sensors-3 package > would solve that issue. But still, this is really more than we'd ideally > like to do (we don't want to be replacing more packages in the distro > than we absolutely have to). You're right, I had not considered other monitoring applications when suggesting this move. My bad. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
