From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C0776FF5 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u8FBKGrm016660; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:20:16 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id VB6pS2c4Uami; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:20:16 +0100 (BST) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u8FBKAJA016654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:20:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1473938410.7207.106.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Patrick Williams , "Burton, Ross" Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:20:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20160915022125.GB25351@heinlein.lan> References: <20160914171252.17773-1-patrick@stwcx.xyz> <20160915022125.GB25351@heinlein.lan> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH] util-linux: split {mkfs, fsck}.minix into packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:20:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 21:21 -0500, Patrick Williams wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:01:01PM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > > On 14 September 2016 at 18:12, Patrick Williams > > wrote: > > > > > > > > mkfs.minix and fsck.minix are likely rarely used, so split > > > them into their own packages to reduce the footprint of > > > util-linux.  This follows the pattern of cramfs support > > > within util-linux. > > > > > Minix is so unlikely to be used, why don't we just disable it > > entirely? > > (--disable-minix). > > > > Ross > Sure, prefer I submit that instead? Please, might as well not bother building that! Cheers, Richard