Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.

To: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>, 66023@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#66023: PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
From: Ove Kaaven <ovek@arcticnet.no>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:05:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104272200190.15770-100000@mizar.ping.uio.no>
Reply-to: Ove Kaaven <ovek@arcticnet.no>, 66023@bugs.debian.org
In-reply-to: <20010427135926.N10417@cibalia.gkvk.hr>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Can any developer second policy proposals? If so, I second this one too...
(I have a package libwine that puts dynamically-loaded stuff into
/usr/lib/wine)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iEYEARECAAYFAjrp0S4ACgkQA+GMa4PlEQ/n+ACgy3tfAnBpUI4xY5BsJ7qq++SW
7MEAn34JP2bmB5Q8iXRruQvDYzpCCBXh
=dSpS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply to:

References:
- Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
  - From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>

Prev by Date: Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Next by Date: [retracted] sarnold's policy diff for .so files
Previous by thread: Bug#66023: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.
Next by thread: Bug#66023: [olly@lfix.co.uk: Re: Old proposals again (Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Shared libs vs. plugins.)]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread