Hi DKG,
> Please make sure you can build the package from the debian/master branch
> at
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wireguard> .
>
> If you can do that successfully (it shouldn't be too hard), feel free to
> take a look at the debian/TODO file, which contains a handful of
> suggestions,
Hi Willem--
On Tue 2019-10-01 06:50:29 +0200, Willem van den Akker wrote:
> I offer by help for maintaining packaging WG.
Thank you, happy to have help!
> Please let me know how I can help.
Please make sure you can build the package from the debian/master branch
at
Hi Daniel,
I offer by help for maintaining packaging WG.
Please let me know how I can help.
/Willem
On 2019-09-08 16:28:52, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Version: 0.0.20190905-1
>
> Over in 849...@bugs.debian.org, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> I do plan for putting wireguard into buster-backports, since i expect
>> the upstream inclusion issues to be resolved one way or another by the
>> time of
Version: 0.0.20190905-1
Over in 849...@bugs.debian.org, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I do plan for putting wireguard into buster-backports, since i expect
> the upstream inclusion issues to be resolved one way or another by the
> time of bullseye release. If anyone wants to help out by adding it
Hi Mika--
On Thu 2019-03-07 16:16:40 +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
> So sadly wireguard didn't make it into buster. :(
yep, frustrating. but that was by design -- it isn't clear to me that
the ecosystem will be happy with having a wide distribution of an
outdated (2019) version running in 2021
* Antoine Beaupré [Wed Sep 26, 2018 at 08:26:07PM -0400]:
> I still think this bug should be closed and we should let wireguard
> migrate in testing. I'm sure the relteam would be mooore than happy to
> remove it at a moment's notice before or during the freeze if we need
> to.
> In other words,
On 2018-08-22 17:56:12, Antoine Beaupre wrote:
> Since this was discussed, Wireguard was actually proposed for mainline,
> as described here:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/761939/
>
> It seems to me more likely that Wireguard will stabilize in a Linux
> kernel release shipped with Buster than
Hello Daniel,
we want wireguard in Kali and Kali is based on Debian testing. For now we
imported it manually from Debian Unstable but it's counter-productive,
we have rolling distributions (kali and testing) and an upstream
following a rolling model and yet we don't have its packages
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:09:05PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> As such, dkg suggested closing this bug to enact the following:
>
> - Migration of package into testing, on a rolling basis.
> - Backporting of package into stable-backports, on a rolling basis.
>
> The long term plan, once
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> The idea is to ship WireGuard in stable-backports
> and in unstable, but not let this migrate to testing.
That would, on the face of it, violate the inclusion criteria for backports
and require an exception from the
To further summarize ongoing conversations:
It appears that there many be another alternative, midway between the
two extremes of stabilization on one hand and keeping this bug report
open on the other. The idea is to ship WireGuard in stable-backports
and in unstable, but not let this migrate to
dkg and I had a discussion about this recently and he asked me to
summarize my understanding of it.
- WireGuard still prefers to operate on a rolling basis, with new
snapshots totally replacing old ones, with no stability, security, or
other long term guarantees.
- WireGuard probably won't be
Would it make sense to create stretch-backports packages of wireguard?
That way it would be installable on machines running stable with the
same apt-get override, but without requiring special pinning
configuration or having the unstable repo available.
--
James McDonald
signature.asc
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Now, of course we could let it drop into testing for the moment by
> reducing the severity of this bug, and then cranking the severity back
> up before the release, but that feels a little bit like cheating, no?
>
> All that said, i do see the appeal of having wider
Hi Georg--
On Wed 2017-07-12 02:56:45 +0200, Georg Faerber wrote:
> I would like to see wireguard right now in buster. Even if the on-wire
> format should change in the future, it would be still worth it, IMHO.
> Buster is the 'testing' suite - so let's just do that: let's test and
> get this
Hi,
I would like to see wireguard right now in buster. Even if the on-wire
format should change in the future, it would be still worth it, IMHO.
Buster is the 'testing' suite - so let's just do that: let's test and
get this into testing. Sometimes testing breaks, which is expected, but
most of
Source: wireguard
Version: 0.0.20161223-1
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream
Justification: renders package unusable
Wireguard appears to be stable and reliable enough to distribute in
debian unstable, to get more widespread testing than would arise from
distribution in experimental alone.
However,
18 matches
Mail list logo
