Re: RFS: hashalot (updated)
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:44:48PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:25:05AM +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
> > > Anyway your gzipped diff is 70K (almost as big as the original
> > > tarball), which seems to clash with your previous statement.
>
> > Matthias Urlich enabled AM_MAINTAINER_MODE some time ago -- this stops _new_
> > unrequested autotoolization changes, but is a reautotooling by itself.
>
> It is indeed true that
> diff -ur hashalot-0.3-[45] | wc -c
> returns just about 5K. And these are the changes documented in the
> changelog.
Actually, it seems that reverting to upstream autotooling doesn't break
anything (except obviously being unfriendly to those who want to update
autotoolage themselves). I would need to rename a file by hand in
debian/rules, that's all.
Should I remove those parts from the diff?
> At a cursory glance it looks like this package may continue to need
> such large patches it it continues to be un-maintained upstream (if
> only for re-autotool-ing!).
Debian patches are small: -q for suppressing output, manpage and now the
buffer overflow fix. Autotoolage changes appear to be huge, but they're all
auto-generated files.
> Is Adam willing to take up the task of being de-facto long-term
> maintainer of the package in this case?
In long-term, the package will most likely be absorbed into cryptsetup,
where already most of functionality has gone to. Unless somehow it is
needed for something else (there appears to be no other hasher for RMD160
around), it will probably go away completely. It's mostly there to avoid
breaking people's setups.
Regards.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
Reply to: