On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 10:36, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 01:15:13PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > >On zondag 20 januari 2019 16:59:11 CET Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> I’m very much against just saying this package > >> “should not exist”
Yeah, what should not exist are NMUs that cause this much of a mess, especially if the one that did it is not going to fix it. Thank you guys very much for pushing a way forward, whichever it might be. And please feel free to adopt the "old rng-tools" package if it is being useful to you... > >I'm inclined to agree with this as the source (+ features/parameters) for > >this > >package is substantially different from rng-tools/rng-tools5. > > Yes, but most of those features are obsolescent at best. I'm not clear > on what functionality is actually being used. (I'm hesitant to remove "old" rng-tools is better for any low-bandwidth RNGs, so I am not sure it is obsolescent: that depends entirely on whether people still design/have low-bandwidth RNGs worth supporting. But yeah, on any stuff with high-bandwidth RNGs (like recent x86 processors, and ARM SoCs with crypto accelerators), I don't think the features "rng-tools-old" implement are really relevant. I'd rather we had it in-kernel, really. -- Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org>
