Re: [libimobiledevice-devel] ipheth
On 27 April 2010 14:33, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul McEnery <pmcenery@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 April 2010 10:47, Martin S. <info@sukimashita.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 00:38 +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 11:55:53AM +0100, Paul McEnery wrote:
>>>> > In order for the udev rule to execute *any* application which performs
>>>> > the pairing, that application must exist in some package. That package
>>>> > will need to be a dependency of usbmuxd (unless usbmuxd provides it).
>>>> > It cannot simply be assumed that if usbmuxd is installed that gvfs,
>>>> > libgpod, etc will also be installed, let alone executed before the
>>>> > user attempts to connect using ipheth. The only way that these
>>>> > assumptions can be met, is with the appropriate dependencies.
>>>> >
>>>> > The way that this must be tested is as follows:
>>>> >
>>>> > - Debian base install (bare minimum system).
>>>> > - install <something>
>>>> > - configure interface to test
>>>> >
>>>> > The <something> above needs to ensure that when an iPhone/device is
>>>> > plugged it, it will pair automatically.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, If I'm allowed to put my $2c, I propose to put the pairing utility on the
>>>> libimobiledevice package, and make usbmuxd depend on it (which IMO is quite
>>>> natural).
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense at all?
>>>
>>> It would be a circular dependency and is not right. libimobiledevice
>>> depends on usbmuxd. Also mind checking this overview:
>>> http://libimobiledevice.org/am-stack-fig-4.png
>>>
>>> ipheth does not depend on usbmuxd nor does it need it to work as it
>>> talks to a different USB interface.
>>>
>>
>> I dont think this is strictly true. Usbmuxd must be up and running or
>> the internet connection does not work. I recall seeing TX timeout
>> messages in syslog if usbmuxd failed to start/was not running while
>> trying to communicate over the ipheth interface.
>>
>>
>> I'll try and sum up what I think is needed:
>>
>> 1. libimobiledevice supplies some sort of pairing utility, or set of
>> utils which can pair, unpair, and list.
>>
>> 2. This <idevicepair> util gets packaged in Debian in the existing
>> libimobiledevice-utils package.
>>
>> 3. The existing ipheth-utils package should be renamed to ipheth-support which:
>> a. supplies a udev rule;
>> b. depends on libimobiledevice-utils.
>>
>> Does this sound sensible?
>>
>> I may need some help with the udev rule... The existing ipheth udev
>> rule could do with some work. I have not had time to test it yet, but
>> I had been planning to replace it with this:
>
> Why not just include the required udev rule in the libimobiledevice
> along with the pairing util? Ultimately it doesn't really matter if
> the rule is included their or even in the upstream udev package. Why
> have a separate package for a 2 line text file?
>
I hear what you are saying, but again it comes down to guaranteeing
that the components are installed which give the required
functionality. In order to maintain the proper chain of dependency,
the udev package would need to depend on libimobiledevice-utils. You
cannot simply supply a udev rule which points to an executable without
guaranteeing that that executable exists.
I dont like the idea of a package supplying a single udev rule either,
but we need to make sure the dependencies are correct.
How about this then.... libimobiledevice-utils supplying the udev rule
and pairing utility, and providing a virtual package which "Provides:
ipheth-support"? Maybe the provides bit is not required...
Suggestions welcome...
Paul.
Reply to: