On 2013-03-01 Julien Cristau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> Find attached a proposed patch to build both guile-gnutls and >> gnutls-bin from gnutls26 instead of gnutls28 for wheezy. Would this be >> acceptable for an unstable upload targeted for testing? Afterwards >> gnutls28 could be pulled from wheezy. > Is there a particular reason we need to ship guile-gnutls? It appears > to have 0 reverse dependency...
Hello, I have no idea how popular guile-gnutls is, whether many people are using it in their own scripts. The binary package was originally asked for by Ludovic Courtès. - Perhaps he can shed a little light... ---------------------------- @*Ludovic*: To give you some context, we are planning to pull gnutls28 from wheezy. If we also stopped shipping guile-gnutls instead of proving it from gnutls 2.x again we could a) get rid of a package without reverse dependencies and b) do without building gnutls with --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel. Do you have any idea how popular guile-gnutls is? ---------------------------- However generally speaking I don't think pulling guile-gnutls just to get rid of --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel is necessary, gnutls versions before 2.12.10-1 were built without large file support even on i386. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
