On 7/9/21 4:07 AM, Jonas Meurer wrote: > Hey Nilesh and Peymaneh, > > Nilesh Patra wrote: >> On 7/6/21 9:28 PM, Peymaneh Nejad wrote: >>> This package[1] provides a builddependency for caddy: >>> github.com/smallstep/cli/crypto/x509utils >>> >>> Initially I wanted to package the whole project, including its binary step-cli that seems to be a very useful tool to me. I revisited my plans and would propose to only package the library that is needed for caddy. As of now, it excludes any sourcecode not needed for providing github.com/smallstep/cli/crypto/x509utils to keep the dependences simple >>> >>> my reasoning is that the binary pulls a lot of dependencies that are forks by the smallstep developers of other packages to suite the developers needs (See my last RFS on this ML). A complete overview is here[1]. >>> >>> Nilesh already wrote sometimes that they'd rather not upload forks if avoidable. An alternative would be to apply all the patches needed for building step-cli. . I skimmed through the source code and to me it seems that patching the original packages could break the intended functionality of several of the packages like zmap/zcrypto. I also fear that my novice programming skills together with my tight schedule are not the best situation for mangling around with code that is intended for verification and linting of TLS certificates. >> >> IMO, if you can, you really should package this binary. I think the target is not to get everything in somehow, but to get all packages in excellent condition that might leave minimal scope for improvement. >> The only problem I see here is that if at some point in time, we need smallstep-cli, then we'll have to loop via NEW queue again, which I prefer avoiding. >> However, if you think that this is redundant, and we can just go ahead with the binary, fair enough. > > While I agree with you in theory, Nilesh, I think that a more pragmatic approach would be more appropriate here. On her way to get the Caddy dependencies packaged, there's quite a lot of pitfalls already. And spending to much time with packaging binaries that are not needed for Caddy and whose usage is rather theoretical sounds like going down the rabbit hole a bit too far ;) > > Don't you think that packaging github.com/smallstep/cli/crypto/x509utils *without* the step-cli binary as a first step would be sufficient? If someone really asks for the binary because they have real usage for it later on, adding the binary package and for that reason again having to pass ftpmasters would be perfectly fine for me. Alright, I agree. > If you prefer in this particular case, I could also take over sponsorship of this package. I think I'll manage this one :-) @Peymaneh, I fixed the copyright a little, however the bad thing is that autopkgtests fail because of a few missing dirs I fixed this and uploaded. From next time, please consider to run and fix autopkgtests at your end, before you ask for sponsoring Thanks for your work! Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature