So the package that shouldn't have existed made it into buster, there's
a ridiculous situation with 3 packages providing essentially the same
functionality with minor differences and no practical way for a user to
figure out which to install, and no movement on fixing this before the
*next*
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
>On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, at 14:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> How about starting a sort of transition to the split packages instead?=
>
>Looks like a sensible approach to me.
It’s a bit too “short” before the release, always has been.
My other ideas, both the p-u
Michael Stone dixit:
> So that's basically just the --rng-entropy argument? If we switch rng-tools5
> to
/usr/lib/stunnel/arngc-slrd | runtunnel | \
rngd -f -r /proc/self/fd/0 -H 0.99 -B 2 \
-s 32 -W "$threshold" -t 300 -T 60
I just had the idea of “castling”¹,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:12:24PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Yes, exactly: it's definitely better for a certain class of hardware, but I'm
honestly just not sure whether any of those are still relevant. (Like, do they
work with current kernels, are they in hardware that's otherwise
Michael Stone dixit:
> Yes, exactly: it's definitely better for a certain class of hardware, but I'm
> honestly just not sure whether any of those are still relevant. (Like, do they
> work with current kernels, are they in hardware that's otherwise supported,
> etc.?) I'd love to see reports from
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:19:13AM -0500, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, at 10:36, Michael Stone wrote:
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
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, at 14:05, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> How about starting a sort of transition to the split packages instead?
Looks like a sensible approach to me.
> • upload rng-tools 2-unofficial-mt.14-2 to buster-proposed-updates
> (since, due to the version number, it cannot go via
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
On maandag 21 januari 2019 17:13:42 CET Michael Stone wrote:
> >Entropy generation for the creation of SSH keys as the netinstaller is
> >mostly used in headless situations.
> >https://github.com/debian-pi/raspbian-ua-netinst/issues/42
>
> That functionality doesn't require the old package; will
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:47:51PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On maandag 21 januari 2019 13:34:19 CET 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
On maandag 21 januari 2019 13:34:19 CET 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”
> >
> >I'm inclined to agree
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”
I'm inclined to agree with this as the source (+ features/parameters) for this
package is
On zondag 20 januari 2019 16:59:11 CET Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> I’m very much against just saying this package
> “should not exist”
I'm inclined to agree with this as the source (+ features/parameters) for this
package is substantially different from rng-tools/rng-tools5.
AFAICT the problem
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 03:59:11PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
• keep rng-tools5 and rng-tools-debian in testing
FWIW, I'd much rather call this rng-tools2 or rng-tools-legacy or
something other than rng-tools-debian (which implies that for some
reason this version is more "debian" than
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 03:59:11PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Please don’t understand me wrong, I’m not against a sensible solution
out of this mess, but I’m very much against just saying this package
“should not exist” without one.
Once it's in stable, this mess is a lot harder to fix, so
Please don’t understand me wrong, I’m not against a sensible solution
out of this mess, but I’m very much against just saying this package
“should not exist” without one. (I also intend to actually fork the
upstream part and hack on it, low pace though and mostly small fixes.)
I don’t have much
Michael Stone dixit:
> I don't entirely understand why this package was ever uploaded, and
> as far as I can tell, with no ITP.
An ITP is not necessary, just recommended.
There was attempt for discussion in #916147, which was however ignored
by *everyone* else for over a month before I took
Package: rng-tools-debian
I don't entirely understand why this package was ever uploaded, and as
far as I can tell, with no ITP. It should not be included in buster.
18 matches
Mail list logo
