Re: what about a Security category?

2005-01-06 Thread Lapo Luchini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lapo Luchini wrote: What about a Security category? No one else would like it? The number of pertinent packages is growing in time 0=) Lapo - -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE

Re: what about a Security category?

2005-01-06 Thread Reini Urban
Lapo Luchini schrieb: What about a Security category? No one else would like it? The number of pertinent packages is growing in time 0=) Which packages? We agreed to stay with the debian names only. Currently most of them are in Net. Which non-Net packages should go to such a Security category

what about a Security category?

2003-10-09 Thread Lapo Luchini
What about a Security category? GPG cuold belong there, for one. OpenSSH too. Lapo -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)

Re: what about a Security category?

2003-10-09 Thread Stefan Hetzl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 09 October 2003 12:13, Lapo Luchini wrote: What about a Security category? GPG cuold belong there, for one. OpenSSH too. libmcrypt and possibly mhash too. Greetings, Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE

Re: what about a Security category?

2003-10-09 Thread Lapo Luchini
Stefan Hetzl wrote: What about a Security category? GPG cuold belong there, for one. OpenSSH too. libmcrypt and possibly mhash too. Then also OpenSSL ^_^ -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)