Package Details: systemd-readahead 216-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/systemd-readahead.git (read-only)
Package Base: systemd-readahead
Description: Standalone version of the fast built-in readahead implementation dropped in systemd 217
Upstream URL: https://dev.gentoo.org/~pacho/systemd-readahead.html
Keywords: boot precaching preload startup
Licenses: LGPL-2.1 MIT
Submitter: swyter
Maintainer: swyter
Last Packager: swyter
Votes: 31
Popularity: 0.000528
First Submitted: 2015-03-08 20:38
Last Updated: 2015-06-10 19:48

Latest Comments

lahwaacz commented on 2015-04-07 21:14

@czipperz: Packages from base-devel group are assumed to be installed: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Prerequisites

czipperz commented on 2015-04-07 20:59

Could you add gcc as an optional dependency as a c compiler?

F1nny commented on 2015-03-19 01:12

Thanks for this swyter and for fighting to keep it up/get it back after misunderstanding(s); even depreciated still has a big impact on startup performance for me and the way packaged have experienced no issues or conflicts, thanks again!

arcanis commented on 2015-03-09 16:37

Can confirm. Also I've asked swyter@ and jleclanche@ to forward their discussion to the aur-request@ ML

swyter commented on 2015-03-09 15:59

@lahwaacz: jleclanche was AFK during weekend and did not have time to reject it before arcanis, originally unaware of the conversation, accepted it.

That's all there is to it.

lahwaacz commented on 2015-03-09 15:54

@jleclanche It was me who submitted the deletion requests. If there were a consensus to keep the package, which I assume predates [1] the acceptance of the second request [2], why was the request not rejected right away?

Until now all we've heard were references to a private discussion, which only added to the "chain of misunderstandings" [1]. Anyway, if this is the official stance of the TUs, I'll stop wasting your time.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk:Improve_boot_performance&diff=364687&oldid=364456
[2] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2015-March/005420.html

Alad commented on 2015-03-09 15:33

Any "more"? Sorry, but I'm not involved in this.. whatever it is. Anyway, looks like it's sorted then.

jleclanche commented on 2015-03-09 15:25

@Alad please don't file any more deletion requests about this package; it's fine as it is as per discussion with swyter and other TUs.

swyter commented on 2015-03-09 15:21

@Alad: Third time, you have no idea.

Alad commented on 2015-03-09 10:44

Re-uploaded for the second time. This is almost comedical.