From: Daniel E. M. <dm...@ne...> - 2010-06-30 15:38:13
|
David R. Morrison <dr...@fi...> said: > > I think we concluded some time ago that we no longer need to keep > the crypto tree separate (following Debian's lead in this, as we had > done originally). However, inertia has left it where it is. > > For various reasons, I am contemplating moving the crypto tree so > that it becomes a subdirectory of main, just like base, devel, etc. > In other words, the contents of crypto/finkinfo would be moved to > main/finkinfo/crypto . I think that move itself could be made > without causing any trouble -- does anybody see any difficulties > with it? > > We could then *eliminate* stable/crypto and unstable/crypto from the > Trees line in fink.conf, and make some corresponding changes to > apt's configuration. This is trickier, but if stable/crypto and > unstable/crypto just became empty directories I think things would > continue to work without such a change. Right? Sounds like a good plan. I don't forsee any confusion in the fink or apt engines (mapping .info<->.deb pathnames is only a fallback for when other methods of finding them fail and we're not moving the existing .deb) Recent packages have been following a loosened interpretation of the policy anyway (some things that depend on crypto-implementing packages but do not actually implement it themselves have reverted to main). So I guess that would become the approximate policy? Section:crypto for openssl, gnutls, and others that actually implement crypto functions, but some random file-downloader that uses those pkgs to do its crypto could go back to section:net or whatever. This is all orthogonal to openssl licensing. dan -- Daniel Macks dm...@ne... http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks |