* Greg Burley (greg.burley@tabq.com.au) wrote: > I have attempted to raise the severity of bug#231196 since there are > other TLS/SSL issues queueing up in the bug list eg. #234583 and the > original #205452 reporting lost TLS features following the patch that > replaced openssl with gnutls in the openldap source. The problems are actually primairly with gnutls10, gnutls7 was working well for most people. > So far no response from the package maintainers on these issues. If you No response? I've already responded to #234639 and #234593 correctly identifies that the problem was the new gnutls10, which you apparently fail to understand. > are going to patch a package downstream without using upstream resources > to verify that the patch has not clobbered documented behaviours then Upstream wouldn't even look at it. We've already offered it to them and in fact asked them to include it. Their 'justification' was that the patch was done under the GPL (or LGPL, either way); of course, the license is the perogative of the author. Feel free to discuss with him if you'd like for him to release it under something else; you might change your attitude though, I doubt he'd be interested in listening to you if you're going to be disrespectful to him and fail to understand the issues. > you are going to have to be more vigilant to bug reports on the package. A whole *5* days for an *unstable* package to respond to a bug that someone else already pointed out was almost certainly due to a change to gnutls10? I hardly consider that something we need to be more 'vigilant' about. You might offer to assist, otherwise you'll just have to wait. It's *unstable* after all, that means 'deal with it' in general. > The alternative is to have the patch accepted upstream which means doing > the hard yards to get it working correctly. Along with offering two > versions of this package one that is openssl dependant and one that is > gnutls dependant in the meantime so that users who are relying on ldap . We won't be offering two versions of the package. If you'd like to work with the patch author and upstream to resolve their differences feel free. I tried but, honestly, upstream was not very responsive at all and the patch isn't all *that* complex. In fact, someone else has already posted a patch which it sounds like may fix some of the problems with gnutls10. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature