Hola Michael Stapelberg! > I have to wonder: Since you seem opposed to fixing this for wheezy, why > did you not update your bugreport accordingly so that my — apparently > unnecessary and useless — work could have been prevented? It cost me > many hours to work on this.
I'm neither the maintainer nor part of the release team, so I have no authority to decide anything. However, I thought it was clear from my first mail that I considered that the package was in a very bad state and that a fix would be too disruptive for wheezy. I did want to get the package fixed for the future, though. Your patch does seem to work on fixing most of the issues that I had identified, and you have tested it thoroughly (I haven't run the tests myself, though), so I guess it would be alright to upload it to unstable. However, I doubt that such a big change for such a small package would be granted an unblock for testing. > I do agree, but that would break at least around 300 installations > (according to popcon). Consider that bcrypt could be part of custom > backup scripts. Well, 293 installations, with "61" votes (regular use). I really think it would be a bad idea to have a tool that deletes and shreds files as an automatic backup tool, but other people might have other ideas... > In case you want to provide a wrapper script which is binary-compatible > with the original file format, feel free, but I think that is definitely > a too large change for wheezy either ;-). Right, I didn't think about binary compatibility, and I wasn't really planning on getting a block exception for that one either. Do you think it's not possible to achieve binary compatibility using the openssl command? -- Love, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
