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

Re: Request to NMU libsafe

You're right that I haven't done anything about libsafe where I should

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:
> > 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: