Re: Debian packages relying on TMPDIR
On 22 May 2001, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Brian" == Brian May <bam@debian.org> writes:
> >>>>> "Tollef" == Tollef Fog Heen <tollef@add.no> writes:
> Tollef> It wasn't only proposed, it was implemented as well
> Tollef> http://add.no/~tollef/software/pam_tmpdir.tgz
> Tollef> I might consider making a debian package of it, or the pam
> Tollef> maintainer may get it into upstream or something like
> Tollef> that. :)
> I'm sort of backlogged a bit on PAM (will be sending mail on that
> soon), so if you think it is ready for inclusion upstream now, I'd
> send mail to pam-list@redhat.com.
> I'm tempted to say it should be a separate package for a while to see
> what problems crop up before we decide it is the standard behavior we
> want. But it does seem like a good long-term strategy for woody+1.
Just to chime in here, I think that packaging the module separately would be
to Debian's advantage in the short term. Since I imagine it doesn't introduce
any new library dependencies, it can certainly go in the main pam modules
package once it's integrated upstream; but between integrating it upstream and
getting it back downstream, this will mean a much longer delay in getting the
module into Debian.
Cheers,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: