Bug#706078: ITP: base91 -- base91 encoder/decoder
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Franck Routier * Package name: base91 Version : 0.6.0 Upstream Author : Joachim Henke * URL : http://base91.sourceforge.net/ * License : BSD Programming Lang: C Description : base91 encoder/decoder basE91 is an advanced method for encoding binary data as ASCII characters. It is similar to UUencode or base64, but is more efficient. The overhead produced by basE91 depends on the input data. It amounts at most to 23% (versus 33% for base64) and can range down to 14%, which typically occurs on 0-byte blocks. This makes basE91 very useful for transferring larger files over binary insecure connections like e-mail or terminal lines. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130424134057.26826.62541.reportbug@franck-ThinkPad-T430s
Re: Bug#706078: ITP: base91 -- base91 encoder/decoder
Le 25/04/2013 23:42, Andreas Bombe a écrit : On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:40:57PM +0200, Franck wrote: basE91 is an advanced method for encoding binary data as ASCII characters. It is similar to UUencode or base64, but is more efficient. The overhead produced by basE91 depends on the input data. It amounts at most to 23% (versus 33% for base64) and can range down to 14%, which typically occurs on 0-byte blocks. This makes basE91 very useful for transferring larger files over binary insecure connections like e-mail or terminal lines. That word should be safety, not security. Safety here means the message does not get mangled, security on the other hand would mean things like encryption. HI, this description is from the upstream readme. I have submited a bug report to ask for a correction. Should I patch the readme inbetween ? Franck smime.p7s Description: Signature cryptographique S/MIME
Re: Bug#706078: ITP: base91 -- base91 encoder/decoder
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:42:20AM +0200, Franck Routier (perso) wrote: > this description is from the upstream readme. I have submited a bug > report to ask for a correction. > Should I patch the readme inbetween ? If you mean the package description, then yes: it should be tailored to Debian. When one can reuse upstream text in a package description, great, but if it isn't correct it should be fixed. If you mean patch an upstream documentation file shipped in the Debian package, that's less important (IMHO), and could wait for an upstream correction. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130528093633.GB16477@debian
Re: Bug#706078: ITP: base91 -- base91 encoder/decoder
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:40:57PM +0200, Franck wrote: > basE91 is an advanced method for encoding binary data as ASCII characters. It > is similar to UUencode or base64, but is more efficient. The overhead produced > by basE91 depends on the input data. It amounts at most to 23% (versus 33% for > base64) and can range down to 14%, which typically occurs on 0-byte blocks. > This makes basE91 very useful for transferring larger files over binary > insecure connections like e-mail or terminal lines. That word should be safety, not security. Safety here means the message does not get mangled, security on the other hand would mean things like encryption. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130425214222.gb8...@amos.fritz.box
