On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 05:26:54PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > > Content-Description: /home/dark/debian/override.hamm.nonus > > [..] > > > mutt optional non-us/mail > > > > This is in main/mail because it's quite free even in the US and the like. > > The mutt-i package is another story. > > Oh. Then why is mutt in non-us? :-) That's a very good question... Package: mutt Priority: optional Section: mail Installed-Size: 554 Maintainer: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl> Architecture: i386 Version: 0.91.1-7 Replaces: mutt-i Provides: mail-reader Depends: libc6, slang0.99.38, mail-transport-agent Recommends: mime-support, ispell, urlview Conflicts: mutt-i Filename: dists/frozen/main/binary-i386/mail/mutt_0.91.1-7.deb Size: 263012 MD5sum: 3208e5dee847bc77582554f0ec7d7a28 Description: Text-based mailreader supporting MIME and threading. Package: mutt-i Installed-Size: 643 Maintainer: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl> Architecture: i386 Source: mutt Version: 0.91.1i-7 Replaces: mutt Provides: mail-reader, mutt Depends: libc6, slang0.99.38, mail-transport-agent Recommends: mime-support, ispell, pgp | pgp5i Suggests: urlview Conflicts: mutt Filename: hamm/binary-i386/mutt-i_0.91.1i-7.deb Size: 329444 MD5sum: e7f9d61cee62caa0d09ab894e9d4042c Description: Text-based mailreader supporting MIME, PGP and threading. The reason mutt-i is in non-us is because it contains hooks for PGP compiled in. mutt doesn't have them compiled in.. > Hmm, looks like it's an old version that should be removed from non-us. > The one in main is version number 0.91.1-7. > > Ah, this is already reported as bug #19123. against non-us.debian.org? > > [..] > > > pgp5i optional non-us/utils > > > rsaref extra non-us/devel > > > > Why extra for rsaref? It's not likely to specifically break anything is it? > > Well, it's marked "extra" in its debian/control file. And the > description says: "This package is needed only to build the PGP > package. It is not required to use the PGP package." > > If it's only useful for compiling PGP with rsaref, then I would call > that "specialised requirements". It's useful for building any RSA-using package that is legal to use in the US. I'm not certain ssh does, but then I don't CARE if it does personally. > > Also, considering the security problems with pgp5, I would suggest that be > > extra rather than optional. > > What security problems? The ones I've heard of till now were all > false alarms. key escrow--without your knowledge. That's NOT a false alarm.
Description: PGP signature