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
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
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 (binary and manpage)
> should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new
> tools will be added, we can spl
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
