Re: Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation

2009-09-04 Thread Franck Joncourt
Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote: >> At a first glance there is no need to split it, and all of the binary >> packages could be created from one source package as you mentionned. >> However, for other distributions than Debian I do not know how their >> packagin

Re: Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation

2009-09-03 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Thu, Sep 03 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote: > Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote: >> >>> I have got one tarball from upstream which is separated in fwknop-client >>> and fwknop-server. The programs are mainly implemented in perl. >>> >>> Upstream is now working

Re: Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation

2009-09-03 Thread Franck Joncourt
Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote: > >> I have got one tarball from upstream which is separated in fwknop-client >> and fwknop-server. The programs are mainly implemented in perl. >> >> Upstream is now working on rewriting it in C. Thus we have now a brand >> new

Re: Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation

2009-09-02 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, Sep 02 2009, Franck Joncourt wrote: > I have got one tarball from upstream which is separated in fwknop-client > and fwknop-server. The programs are mainly implemented in perl. > > Upstream is now working on rewriting it in C. Thus we have now a brand > new tarball available known as fwkn

Fwknop: Layout suggestions for a future implementation

2009-09-02 Thread Franck Joncourt
(Upstream is CCed, please keep it that way) PS: Mail previously sent to debian-mentor, but I did not get any answers, therefore I try on devel. Hi, I am the maintainer of fwknop: http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fwknop.html "The FireWall KNock OPerator implements an authorization scheme called