Le Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:13:26PM +0100, Luca Capello a écrit :
>
> I was wondering if having two packages with only one or two files [1]
> was worth it, because in this case we have 4 times [2] the same
> changelog.gz, changelog.Debian.gz, copyright and README.
Dear Luca,
If the lib package sh
Hello!
This is for bug readers and d-d's information.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:24:55 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-08 12:04]:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:38:42 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > Please do not include it in the lib package, it's a pain
Hello!
Please keep d-d in the cc: header.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:28:33 +0100, Marcus Better wrote:
>> libpam-thinkfinger (depends on libthinkfinger0)
>> libthinkfinger0
>> libthinkfinger-dev
>> thinkfinger (depends on libpam-thinkfinger)
>
> (What is the thinkfinger package for, if the tool is in
Hello!
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:38:42 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Please do not include it in the lib package, it's a pain afterwards
> when a new version with a different soname is introduced and
> disallows parallel installation of those.
With my non-yet-skilled-library packager hat on, I don't
Hello!
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:38:08 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Luca Capello wrote:
>> ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just
>> for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage)
>> should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case
>> ne
Luca Capello wrote:
ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just
for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage)
should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new
tools will be added, we can split the package.
Is a strong reason agains
> libpam-thinkfinger (depends on libthinkfinger0)
> libthinkfinger0
> libthinkfinger-dev
> thinkfinger (depends on libpam-thinkfinger)
(What is the thinkfinger package for, if the tool is in the library package?)
I really think the binary should not go in the library package, see
http://www.netfo
Hello!
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:13:02 +0100, James Westby wrote:
> On (07/02/07 23:39), Luca Capello wrote:
[2] I still have a problem, because e.g. "PAM module for the SGS
Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader" is longer than
the expected 60 characters for the short des
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 23:39:39 +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just
> for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage)
> should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new
> tools will be added, we
Hi,
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:47:42 +0100 Luca Capello wrote:
> I'm adding again the bug report, please keep it cc:ed.
Oh, sorry, was reading via gmane, so reply was sent over nntp only. Now
CC'ing everyone.
> > Is tf-tool to be used by the user directly? If so, I would place it
> > in an own pack
Hello!
I'm adding again the bug report, please keep it cc:ed.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:28:24 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:39:39 +0100 Luca Capello wrote:
>
>> ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just
>> for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool
On (07/02/07 23:39), Luca Capello wrote:
> >> [2] I still have a problem, because e.g. "PAM module for the SGS
> >> Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader" is longer than the
> >> expected 60 characters for the short description. Suggestions
> >> welcome!
> >
> > Perhaps you can d
Hello!
I'm cc:ing Joshua Rubin (the ThinkFinger co-maintinaer) and d-d to
have more comments.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:24:29 +0100, Marcus Better wrote:
> Luca Capello wrote:
>> Am I correct? Is tf-tool worth a single package or can I include
>> it in libthinkfinger (as I'd prefer)?
>
> I think it
> ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just
> for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage)
> should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new
> tools will be added, we can split the package.
I tend to agree with Luca. tf-tool is i
Hi!
Luca Capello wrote:
> Am I correct? Is tf-tool worth a single package or can I include it
> in libthinkfinger (as I'd prefer)?
I think it's common practice to put the tools in a separate package, and
suggest the name thinkfinger-tools instead of tf-tool, since it's easier for
the user to i
Hi,
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 22:12 +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> Apart from the fact that ThinkFinger isn't my project, I haven't see
> your mail yet on the mailing-list. Are you subscribed to the list or
> are you waiting for moderator's approval?
I haven't approved the mail as it was > 500K in si
Hello!
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:34:03 +0100, Joshua Rubin wrote:
> I have already begun packaging this. I realize that this bug report
> is an ITP, so I don't want to step on your toes.
Please read below.
> I have already emailed my package to your thinkfinger-devel on your
> sourceforge project.
Hi Luca,
I have already begun packaging this. I realize that this bug report is
an ITP, so I don't want to step on your toes. I have already emailed my
package to your thinkfinger-devel on your sourceforge project. I just
wanted to let you know that I would be happy to help in any way I can.
Sinc
Package: wnpp
Owner: Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: thinkfinger
Version : 0.2.2 [1]
Upstream Author : Timo Hoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
* URL or Web page : http://thinkfinger.sourceforge.net
* License : G
19 matches
Mail list logo
