| 1 |
On Thursday 07 April 2005 01:17, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 2 |
> I was more talking about the virtual/pam-modules (or whatever). Having |
| 3 |
> a a PDEPEND is just fine. |
| 4 |
I was thinking of the virtual for future expansion on NetBSD and other, but |
| 5 |
this is probably better done using an || PDEPEND when it will be needed. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> > That's a decision up to you as pam mantainers :) |
| 8 |
> > Anyway I'm available to add the temporary fixes, trace them, and remove |
| 9 |
> > them when all is done, if needed. |
| 10 |
> Id rather just do it cleanly. |
| 11 |
Another solution which could be done "quickly" could be that: |
| 12 |
- add dependency for the packages which uses include on virtual/pam |
| 13 |
- provide virtual/pam with pam version 0.78 (and openpam, in my and/or fbsd |
| 14 |
overlay until it's mature enough to be merged) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In this way the dependency could be expressed in a single way which won't need |
| 17 |
to be fixed in future. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò |
| 21 |
http://wwwstud.dsi.unive.it/~dpetteno/ |
Archives