On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:29:08PM -0400, William Enck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:15:24PM +0200, Jan Sechser wrote:
> > I don't know, but this could satisfy the different licences.
> > maybe this will require a seperate build environment, though
> > Why the hell nowhere at freeradius.org is this mentioned ?
> It's a hack, but attached is a patch I made. It creates
> freeradius-eaptls_0.9.3-1_i386.deb
What advantage does this have over building packages from the upstream
tarball?
> I'm sure it breaks license rules, but sometimes people just want to get
> things working.
I'm not sure why that would belong in a Debian bug report, though.
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 01:29:08PM -0400, William Enck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:15:24PM +0200, Jan Sechser wrote:
> > I don't know, but this could satisfy the different licences.
> > maybe this will require a seperate build environment, though
> > Why the hell nowhere at freeradius.org is this mentioned ?
> It's a hack, but attached is a patch I made. It creates eaptls_ 0.9.3-1_ i386.deb
> freeradius-
What advantage does this have over building packages from the upstream
tarball?
> I'm sure it breaks license rules, but sometimes people just want to get
> things working.
I'm not sure why that would belong in a Debian bug report, though.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer