Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:53:41 +0400
From: Aleksey Cherepanov <>
Subject: Re: Aleksey's daily status report #13

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:42:02AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Aleksey, Frank -
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:14:51AM +0400, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote:
> > For two days...
> > 
> > Done
> > 
> > - .debs are finished
> > - .rpms are finished
> >   Ugh... %-)
> This would be good if it were true

It is true ;-)

> , but from what you wrote below you're
> merely repackaging previously built binaries.  Frank - did you approve
> this sort of thing (and I missed it)?
> Do the resulting packages have proper dependencies on the libraries?
> For example, what happens when you try to install them on a system
> without Qt installed?

Everything is ok.

My checklist was:
- dependencies (needs qt and john, and does not need anything else)
- permissions, uid, gud on installed files
- place of license file

Previously I tested binaries separately looking for:
- problems with appearance
- path to john and its auto detection
- need of qt installation, its version and so on

My .debs and .rpms are good.

Though .rpm dependency on qt does not insist on certain version (just
4.*). So there could be problems with qt older than 4.6. But among
tested systems I did not see such.


Aleksey Cherepanov

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.