On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > So - what should I do to handle this? Can the priority of libssl0.9.6 be
> > > easily changed? Or should I rather provide libldap2{,-ssl}? Technically
> > > it would not be a big deal since the interface of libldap2 does not
> > > change if you enable ssl. Also I wonder if a slapd package without
> > > ssl would be in order. After all there are still people using Debian
> > > who are not allowed to import all that crypto stuff from the US.
> >
> > I would suggest that you make an extra -ssl package, along the lines
> > of eg. fetchmai{,-ssl}l. It reduces dependencies and solves your
> > problem. Maybe people want ldap, but not ssl.
>
> Now that we have crypto in main, I think we should have fewer -ssl
> packages, not more.Alright, if this is consensus. Greetings, Oliver -- debian/rules http://zork.net/~nick/srom/
pgpEdmy7OQgov.pgp
Description: PGP signature
