Re: Request to NMU libsafe
You're right that I haven't done anything about libsafe where I should
have...
I guess the best thing to do right now is put libsafe up for adoption.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Ron Rademaker |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|GPG info: |
|pub 1024D/DAB68799 2000-10-01 Ron Rademaker <ron@wep.tudelft.nl> |
|Key fingerprint = F3D6 C4DC 6BE3 A37D B29D D93B AC0B B72D DAB6 8799 |
| |
|Key available from: wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net, wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net, |
|wwwkeys.us.pgp.net or rademaker.dhs.org/public_gpgkey |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Powered by Debian/GNU Linux 2.2 (potato) (2.2.19 kernel) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Yotam Rubin writes:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > The last libsafe upload has been over a year ago. Since then, libsafe
> > has accumulated a large number of bugs. The current Debian release doesn't
> > seem to be very effective. I've packaged the latest libsafe and made it
> > available at: http://192.117.130.34/Fendor/debian/libsafe/
> > Can someone NMU that? I've contacted the maintainer but received no reply.
> > It's a shame that libsafe wouldn't be usable for Debian users.
>
> - the upload isn't marked as a NMU
>
> - the package does not build from source (calls ldconfig):
>
> - the package does not build a -dev package. Correct?
>
> - the package overwrites the old library? Correct, if it's an
> extension only. But then it needs to be marked in the shlibs file.
> Else you need to build a libsafe2 and libsafe-dev package.
> OTOH, no package depends on libsafe.
>
> So it seems, we don't gain much to replace one buggy version with the
> next buggy version.
>
Reply to: