Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2012-12-30 Thread Vincent Cheng
Hi, I came across this bug while trying to run requestbackport as well... > This comes from a bad combination of python-crypto and python-keyring > (see http://bugs.debian.org/675379; python-keyring: CryptedFileKeyring > is insecure). python-keyring got fixed already in unstable but didn't > migr

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-02 Thread Michael Bienia
On 2012-12-30 18:40:23 -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote: Hi, > Michael: the reason why python-keyring can't migrate to testing right > now is because Debian is in freeze, and updates such as new upstream > releases don't comply with the freeze policy [1]. Is there a way to > fix this bug with the curren

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-02 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2013-01-02 12:35:36, Michael Bienia wrote: > On 2012-12-30 18:40:23 -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Hi, > > > Michael: the reason why python-keyring can't migrate to testing right > > now is because Debian is in freeze, and updates such as new upstream > > releases don't comply with the freeze po

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-02 Thread Michael Bienia
On 2013-01-02 14:34:58 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2013-01-02 12:35:36, Michael Bienia wrote: > > 1: There would be an other option: to undo the change in python-crypto > > which enforces an non-empty IV but it's not a sane option security-wise. > > NACK with my python-crypto maintainer

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-02 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2013-01-02 14:34:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > Ideally python-crypto would have a "Breaks: python-keyring (<= 0.7.1-1)" > > to enforce an upgrade of python-keyring when python-crypto get upgraded. > > Yeah, it should have the Breaks. I'll look into that. Done. I'll ask for an unblock as so

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2012-11-15 Thread Jean-Michel Vourgère
Package: ubuntu-dev-tools Version: 0.143 Severity: normal When running $ requestsync -d unstable -ns eyefiserver A browser opens and I can login in an Ubuntu website then I enter a password 3 times then I get a python ValueError exception with a backtrace. $ requestsync -d unstable -ns eyefiserv

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2012-11-25 Thread Michael Bienia
On 2012-11-15 20:51:59 +, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote: > ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long This comes from a bad combination of python-crypto and python-keyring (see http://bugs.debian.org/675379; python-keyring: CryptedFileKeyring is insecure). python-keyring got fixed already in unstable b

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-16 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
On 2013-01-02 14:34:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2013-01-02 12:35:36, Michael Bienia wrote: > > On 2012-12-30 18:40:23 -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Michael: the reason why python-keyring can't migrate to testing right > > > now is because Debian is in freeze, and updates suc

Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2013-01-16 Thread Vincent Cheng
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2013-01-02 14:34:58, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >> On 2013-01-02 12:35:36, Michael Bienia wrote: >> > On 2012-12-30 18:40:23 -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > > Michael: the reason why python-keyring can't migrate to testi

Bug#693372: Fwd: Re: Bug#693372: ubuntu-dev-tools: requestsync fails "ValueError: IV must be 16 bytes long"

2012-11-25 Thread Jean-Michel Vourgère
Hello Carl It looks like I cannot use requestsync (see #693372) because of a problem in your package python-keyring. If I understand what Michael Bienia says, bug #675379 needs to be fixed in wheezy, not just unstable. What is your opinion on that? Shouldn't the fix be backported for wheezy? I