Hi, Andreas Metzler <ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org> skribis:
> @*Ludovic*: To give you some context, we are planning to pull > gnutls28 from wheezy. If we also stopped shipping guile-gnutls instead > of proving it from gnutls 2.x again we could a) get rid of a package > without reverse dependencies and b) do without building gnutls with > --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel. Do you have any idea > how popular guile-gnutls is? Well, among Guile users it’s somewhat popular and definitely useful (I and others use it on top of Guile 2’s HTTP client for HTTPS, and I heard of an IRC bot that uses it.) You build with --disable-largefile because Guile is built without large-file support, and thus you’d get incorrect off_t, size_t, & co, right? AFAIK there’s no such problem with Guile 2.0, because its public interfaces use scm_t_off instead of off_t, etc. > However generally speaking I don't think pulling guile-gnutls just to > get rid of --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel is necessary, Yeah, that would sound like radical fix. ;-) Ludo’. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5e53383....@gnu.org
