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

Uploaded gpg-rsaidea 2.1 (alpha) to pandora



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Format: 1.6
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 17:57:20 +0200
Source: gpg-rsaidea
Binary: gpg-idea gpg-rsa
Architecture: alpha
Version: 2.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: bartw@debian.org
Description: 
 gpg-idea   - IDEA (PGP 2.x-compatible) module for GNU Privacy Guard
 gpg-rsa    - RSA (PGP 2.x-compatible) module for GNU Privacy Guard
Changes: 
 gpg-rsaidea (2.1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Non-maintainer upload, with approval of the maintainer.
   * Updated for Policy 3.x, FHS et al. (should this really be a native
     package? don't know...)
   * Recompiled to get rid of unresolved symbol messages on slink,
     fixes: #37816.
   * Removed /usr/bin/gpg* scripts diversions in postinst, if there are
     such leftovers from version 1, fixes: #40824.
   * Added proper Depends:, by using correctly invoking dpkg-shlibdeps,
     fixes #42854. Other unrelated fixes to debian/rules file.
   * Changed gpg-idea's recommendation to gpg-rsa | gpg-rsaref, fixes:
     #40831. Moved the section describing IDEA to gpg-idea's control
     section, logically.
   * Updated README.Debian's section about dpkg-buildpackage, fixes: #43501.
     Install the file in gpg-idea, too.
   * Added postinsts to display little help message (how to use it, and
     where to check if patents are going to hurt you), but only if the
     package is being installed for the first time (i.e. not upgraded).
Files: 
 eacac43dd3c71dedaca86ae0a60145e0 13340 non-US/non-free optional gpg-rsa_2.1_alpha.deb
 b536d1b4c12432b84a297a9bf4417444 12228 non-US/non-free optional gpg-idea_2.1_alpha.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBN+0I8iXrx7AQoP3RAQHdVwP/ZK+yW2GZjqkWgxf9IFfR/xc7RY5wHUyK
zh/Lg1xE9nF+3gAG/KRaIZgBXEY/STCmvI3M6RWyWaTrEkoN2s/RmzZ5Tq6a9ONq
L6Nx9fvkh/jgEV9ppI/6VLvKQkwLMOfUYiQicfEe14lVWdL1PazsRhbMOsXtnz2u
z/PMLWCmisY=
=XuTH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: