Hello,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While looking at the description of mksh, I was surprised to read
>>the following things:
>>
>> * "the build environment requirements are autoconfigured"
>> This is completely irrelevant for Debian where users don't have to build
>> the package
>
> While you're right on this one, I wonder about the benefit of adjusting
> the description for Debian vs the benefit of having a package description
> shared among all ports. But I guess I'll fix this point in the next update.
The point of the description in the Debian package is to help
someone to tell whether the package is useful or not. So details about
building are irrelevant there.
>> * "The mksh-static binary is a version of mksh, linked against dietlibc
>> if possible,"
>>
>> Well, is it or not linked with dietlibc ???? Providing a binary package,
>> you *should* know ;-) !
>
> It is, if possible. Please see the dietlibc package for a list of
> supported architectures – not all Debian ports are among these.
Hmmm... Good point. Then, rather than "if possible", use "on
supported architectures" ? That would be more helpful and less
puzzling.
Cheers,
Vincent
