[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Unidentified subject!

Sender: apharris@arroz.fake
To: zw@zhaoway.com
Cc: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFC: ITP(?) busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate packages
References: <[🔎] E13j9Wb-0002r2-00@dumblink.loony>
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: 13 Oct 2000 14:46:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: zw@zhaoway.com's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:13:37 +0800"
Message-ID: <oahf6g4m1a.fsf@arroz.fake>
Lines: 21
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

zw@zhaoway.com writes:

> Please give me your advice if packaging busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate
> packages is a good idea or not. Thanks!
> This comes to my mind because:
> 1) Seems boot-floppies won't like to come into woody (c.f. Adam)
> 2) Packages like mkinitrd-cd depends on boot-floppies solely for these two
> utilities.
> If it's a good idea ;-) I'd like to package 'em but I will need some further
> help! ;-) I'm currently in NM queue, I suppose. ;-)

mklibs.sh should probably be it's own package, perhaps.  It's a nice
little utility and could use the work of more porters to get it
working on more architectures.  I would imagine if it is packaged
separately, it would be easier for porters to work on.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: