k...@otaku42.de wrote:
> http://lists.shmoo.com/pipermail/hostap/2008-July/018106.html
>
> If someone is willing to hack up a patch, upstream is willing to consider
> it.
>
> Thanks, Kel.
Thanks for a pointer. That’s good to hear.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Kel, would it be appropriate for wpasupplicant to avoid a strict
> dependency on libpcsclite, by using dlopen() maybe? (Note I am only
> asking if it would be appropriate; the actual work would fall on the
> shoulders of people with an interest in that happening.)
ht
2010/8/4 Jonathan Nieder :
> Speaking of which, from a naïve point of view it is not clear
> why wpasupplicant would need this.
wpasupplicant can be used with a smart card, so the use of libpcsclite.
> Kel, would it be appropriate for wpasupplicant to avoid a strict
> dependency on libpcsclite, b
Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> pcscd - Middleware to access a smart card using PC/SC (daemon side)
[...]
> pcsc-lite (1.6.2-1) experimental; urgency=low
> .
>* New upstream release
>* debian/rules: use the minimal dh rules
>* debian/control: Standards-Version: 3.8.4 -> 3.9.1. No cha
Le 01/08/10 02:54, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
Package: libpcsclite1
Version: 1.6.1-1
Justification: policy §2.5
Now that libpcsclite1 depends on pcscd, should the priority of the
latter be bumped to optional?
You are right. pcscd should be changed from extra to optional. Both
pcscd and libpcsc
Package: libpcsclite1
Version: 1.6.1-1
Justification: policy §2.5
Now that libpcsclite1 depends on pcscd, should the priority of the
latter be bumped to optional?
Noticed because wpasupplicant depends on these.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
6 matches
Mail list logo
