You're right that I haven't done anything about libsafe where I should have...
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | |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: http://192.117.130.34/Fendor/debian/libsafe/ > > 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. >
