Re: [2002-02-16] Release Status Update
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Pretty much. The crypto-in-main transition for woody is meant to just
> > > be a "move packages, don't think" one. Actually doing a good job of
> > > integrating crypto into the distro is a woody+1 issue (or woody+n,
> > > even depending on how high you rate "good").
> >
> > It's going to be sort of gross for woody to have a bunch of -ssl
> > packages and so on right next to their non-ssl-enabled builds, isn't it?
> >
> > Sigh. Oh well.
> >
> >
>
> I'm glad you brought it up because ctually I was just thinking about this.
> I have two sets of packages that are affected. Webmin (and webmin-ssl)
> and uw-imap (and uw-imap-ssl.) What I was planning to do is to add SSL
> support to uw-imap and webmin and then just ask the FTP admins to drop
> uw-imap-ssl and webmin-ssl. Would that not work? Am I missing anything
> there?
That's the way to go. The question is if it goes in in time for woody.
Ciao
Racke
--
Think of it !
For projects and other business stuff please refer to COBOLT NetServices
(URL: http://www.cobolt.net; Email: info@cobolt.net; Phone: 0041-1-3884400)
Reply to: