Ivan Kalchev

@dfreese the proposed solution may "regress" `rust_binary` targets where `-pie` is maybe what we want. But building on that, I think one option is that we can use different action...

I should have been more concise. FYI I label “protocol” issues that implement pieces of the HAP spec.

Hey! I will go over the PR later when I get to a computer. As for the loop in the driver - this is the core of the PR I...

Hey! Too busy the last week, but I submitted the asyncio today (in dev). Could you revise this?

Note that one of the merges broke the accessories (the Category is now in costs.py and is not a class). Will try to fix this soon

@lboue Will you be addressing the raised issues or should I take care of these after a merge maybe?

Sorry I am jumping in so late - I agree that mixing both models can produce surprising effects. And I also think that HAP-python won't be fully async any time...

Well something needs to be tagged `run_at_interval` if you see the _wrapper somewhere in your stack. The "stock" Accessory `run` method is defined as async, so this definitely get's submitted...

Thanks for the feedback, I will try to think of something in the weekend and get back to you

Thanks! I will review this and the raised issues and will open PR to track them later this evening. Awesome addition