Hi, Good news:
After several months redoing the packaging from scratch, Cherokee 0.99.24 has been uploaded to Debian! http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee/news/20091003T011724Z.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cherokee.html I have not yet uploaded to Debian Unstable, as I am still unsure on whether the packaging is sound — I made this upload to Experimental, which means you will only get the packages if you explicitly ask apt-get to use Experimental - And it is usually not too wise to abuse. The packaging is still not prime quality, and I still have some critical and important bugs to squish before uploading to unstable - But I am sure it will be worth the wait. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?repeatmerged=no&src=cherokee Still, as the developer community, and as the community driving the usage of this webserver, I invite you to test the packaging and to comment on any weirdness. FWIW, I have already found a non-concurrently-installable bug in some of the packages (some of them are providing the same files)... Will be fixed soon. Leonel: For building and playing with Ubuntu, I am building in the 'dh7' branch of the git repository. I want to make my low library-fu obvious again: Álvaro and friends, why are some libraries/modules/plugins compiled only to .so, and some also to .a and to .la? As an example, out of a usual build, I get: If I understand this correctly, I should be able to provide only the .so files and ignore the others? (Debian frowns on statically linked libraries) Or am I getting it all wrong and the .so should be provided in the library, while the .a and .la in the development package (allowing others to link to said library)? Anyway, I'll also ask around within Debian. But still, if you have some insight to give, please do so. Thanks! -- Gunnar Wolf • [email protected] • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
