<div dir="ltr">I disagree. This change should not have gone in the first place causing the regression for the users. Please be consistent with the history.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Phil Blundell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pb@pbcl.net" target="_blank">pb@pbcl.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 11:01 +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:<br>
> No, that was intentional. That is why the change has been updated.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I can update the commit message if that is what you wish?<br>
<br>
</div>As a general rule yes, please always make sure that the commit message<br>
describes what the patch is actually doing.<br>
<br>
But in this particular case, your new patch seems to have more serious<br>
problems since it will cause rfkill to silently disappear for many<br>
people who do currently have it.<br>
<br>
If your distro selects a toolchain which doesn't contain the necessary<br>
bits to support rfkill then it seems as though the appropriate course of<br>
action would be to either:<br>
<br>
a) patch rfkill so that it does build with your headers; or<br>
<br>
b) introduce a PACKAGECONFIG option for busybox to turn off rfkill even<br>
if it would naturally default to on, and set this in your distro<br>
configuration; or<br>
<br>
c) just add your own .bbappend for busybox to do what you want.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
p.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>