Is there a reason why "inkjar" is not built by default? I looked through the archives, and it wasn't mentioned. Also, there do not appear to be any excessive dependencies for compiling it (zlib isn't a "strange" dependency, IMHO).
Just curious!
Good catch - why don't you go ahead and set it up to build by default. I suspect the only reason it isn't is because it's still kind of new.
Thanks, Bryce
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Kees Cook wrote:
Is there a reason why "inkjar" is not built by default? I looked through the archives, and it wasn't mentioned. Also, there do not appear to be any excessive dependencies for compiling it (zlib isn't a "strange" dependency, IMHO).
Just curious!
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:35:37AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Good catch - why don't you go ahead and set it up to build by default. I suspect the only reason it isn't is because it's still kind of new.
Okay, I've made it default to "yes" now.
In a similar area... I was looking at the debian "rules" and "control" files. I suspect they may be slightly out of date (especially the --with and --without options). And the build-deps are a little off. Looks like no one has touched the "rules" file since sodipodi, and njh has been updating the build deps.
Since I'm no deb packaging expert, I'm worried about checking in my fixes. Should I go ahead anyway? My changes work for me, though...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:35:37AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Good catch - why don't you go ahead and set it up to build by default. I suspect the only reason it isn't is because it's still kind of new.
Okay, I've made it default to "yes" now.
In a similar area... I was looking at the debian "rules" and "control" files. I suspect they may be slightly out of date (especially the --with and --without options). And the build-deps are a little off. Looks like no one has touched the "rules" file since sodipodi, and njh has been updating the build deps.
Since I'm no deb packaging expert, I'm worried about checking in my fixes. Should I go ahead anyway? My changes work for me, though...
Normally, yeah go ahead. Since we're in feature freeze mode, though, if you're concerned, post it as a patch to the tracker for review. That way if there's any issues, it can be left 'til post-release to merge.
Bryce
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 10:17:12AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Normally, yeah go ahead. Since we're in feature freeze mode, though, if you're concerned, post it as a patch to the tracker for review. That way if there's any issues, it can be left 'til post-release to merge.
Done. If nathan could look it over and apply if it's sane, that's be great.
Patch ID 928940
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Kees Cook wrote:
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 10:17:12AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Normally, yeah go ahead. Since we're in feature freeze mode, though, if you're concerned, post it as a patch to the tracker for review. That way if there's any issues, it can be left 'til post-release to merge.
Done. If nathan could look it over and apply if it's sane, that's be great.
Patch ID 928940
Cool, thanks!
Bryce
participants (2)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Kees Cook