Hey Steve, I thought about this very same thing before putting this up for packaging. My reasons are as follows: a) I am working on a project that wants krb5 support, and I figured I could option krb4 support as well b) Debian already has a lot of libraries and support for krb4 clients. it is legacy and this is not a reason in and of itself, but it is compelling(in my mind) for inclusion in the archives. c) The packages have not changed in a year or two on CPAN which says to me that they are pretty much FINAL. With not a lot of code delta, I don't expect them to be a burden on myself (or theoretically the QA team or a future maintainer). I don't know how Debian feels about including the "low hanging fruit", as I'm new at this, but I'd like your opinion on it. Also, as an option, since they are by the same author, I could package them together, but my gut instinct says to have them separately. Your thoughts? Thanks for the feedback --jay On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 21:05:12 +0000 "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote: > Hi Jay, > > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 07:46:47AM -0500, Jay Bonci wrote: > > > * Package name : libkrb4-perl > > Version : 1.1 > > Upstream Author : Jeff Horwitz <jhorwitz75@yahoo.com> > > * URL : http://search.cpan.org/author/JHORWITZ/Krb4-1.1/ > > * License : GPL/Artistic > > Description : Perl extensions for Kerberos 4 > > I have to ask, if this hasn't been needed previously, is there really > any point in adding it to the archive now? Kerberos 4 is legacy > technology that every site I know either has dropped or is in the > process of dropping. Do you have a specific application where > Authen::Krb5 is insufficient? > > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > -- Jay Bonci | <jay@bonci.com> GPG: E0B8B2DE| 562B 35DC BE8D 7802 DB31 6423 64D8 790F E0B8 B2DE
Attachment:
pgpqmdTDbMahl.pgp
Description: PGP signature