Am Samstag, den 04.08.2018, 18:49 +0200 schrieb W. Martin Borgert: > I wonder, why you want to package go-sendxmpp, if sendxmpp does > the same? Just another implementation language does not sound > like a great reason to have a new package. Maybe you can point > out some advantages, e.g. in functionality, performance, memory > consumption, dependency burden, security?
I wrote it as the original sendxmpp had TLS-problems for me and someone else had problems sending to a groupchat with sendxmpp. So I thought an alternative could easily be done. But thinking it over I agree with you that 'just another sendxmpp' isn't a unique feature set that justifies inclusion in Debian. Maybe I was too excited and sent the RFP too quickly. Am Samstag, den 04.08.2018, 19:26 +0200 schrieb Michael Stapelberg: > Let me know how it goes, and I can update the blog post. Seems I also was too quick here. I thought it was one command per codebox on your post but some contain more and it turned out that this command already fails: "gbp buildpackage --git-pbuilder". I would have to search the debian go documentation for details (maybe this command is outdated) but as I am tending to agree with W. Martin Borgert to close this RFP I might do this later with one of my other projects which doesn't have an similar package already included in Debian. Best wishes, Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
