Subject: Re: RFC: ITP(?) busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate packages
From: Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com>
Date: 13 Oct 2000 14:46:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:13:37 +0800"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 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
> 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/>