Re: ppp bug and maintainer's negative attitude
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:53, Andrea Borgia <borgia@cs.unibo.it> wrote:
> -cut-
> This happened to only one user. I consider this problem minor and have
> no plan to backport ppp.
> -cut-
You realise of course that ppp changed significantly between 2.4.1 and 2.4.2
and the code is not particularly easy to manage. Back-porting a patch is not
necessarily an easy task.
> Again acting on advice from my DD friends, I am posting here asking for
> help: what else can it be done to solve this issue? Rebuilding the ppp
> package from unstable on stable isn't feasible because of complex
> dependecies and, again, the whole point of using stable is not having to
> care about such things (to a certain extent, granted).
If you remove the pppoatm patches then you can remove the dependency on
libatm1-dev. The PAM and libpcap libraries haven't changed significantly in
any way that affects building PPP AFAIK. Removing ATM support (which was
never in woody anyway) should make it build on woody without excessive
effort.
Also Brian May has compiled the new PAM on woody, just in case that is
necessary for compiling the new pppd.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: