On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 18:29:07 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Christoph Martin asked me to merge the SSL patches, that he maintains as
> separate packages (netkit-{telnet,ftp}-ssl and linux-ftpd-ssl), into the
> non-ssl source packages. After this change, telnet{,d}-ssl and ftp{,d}-ssl
> would be provided by the non-ssl packages (via multi-build and conditional
> patch applying).Erm, what's the point of keeping non-SSL-capable packages? AFAICT the SSL-capable packages can do everything the non-SSL-capable ones can. I'd strongly prefer to see the regular "telnet" and "ftp" packages become SSL-capable (and have proper Conflicts: and Replaces: for the older "telnet-ssl" and "ftp-ssl" ones). > However, I heard that package relationships in base are frozen. Yes. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/03/msg00026.html . > The packages in question are at most priority "standard" (not "required"). > Does the freeze affect them too? I'm not sure, but my guess is they don't. On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 19:36:36 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > I might be missing something, but you are not proposing to change any > *binary* packages of priority standard, aren't you? If I understand Robert correctly, he's not proposing to change the dependencies of the "ftp" and "telnet" binary packages. As I pointed out above, I would like to see them changed (as a side-effect of improving them by adding SSL capabilities), provided this doesn't mess up things for debian-installer. Ray -- "a infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program" .../linux/Documentation/CodingStyle
