[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rust-aes update?



On 2023/1/23 21:46, Peter Green wrote:
> Firstly there are direct reverse dependencies, rust-zip and rust-secret-service.
> Both currently depend upstream on version 0.7 of aes. There is a pull request
> from Blair Noctis updating secret-service but it adds a dependency on the new
> package cbc which is not yet in Debian.

cbc is in debcargo-conf but I guess it won't see itself in bookworm.

> There don't seem to be any proposed fixes/updates for rust-zip.

rust-zip doesn't (as reported by dc-c/dev/list-rdeps.sh) have any rdeps. It may
be safe to be removed, or we could suggest an dep update to upstream.

> Then there is the fact that the new version of aes depends on a new version
> of cipher. Reverse dependencies of this include
> 
> * rust-aes-soft and rust-aes-ctr, I think these should probablly be removed
>    when aes is updated.
> * rust-block-modes, this is deprecated upstream, the only reverse dependency
>    in debian is secret-service. The PR submitted by noctis to update secret-service
>    to the new aes also gets rid of the dependency on block-modes so block-modes
>    should also probablly be removed as part of this update
> 
> The new version of rust-cipher also has a dependency on rust-inout which is
> not currently in Debian.

cipher and inout are both in dc-c. Deprecated crates were mentioned in my
previous email at https://lists.debian.org/debian-rust/2022/11/msg00002.html.

> And then there is the fact that we are supposed to be in a transition freeze at
> the moment. I think an update of this complexity certainly counts as a transition.
> 
> I would suggest that if you want to update aes you work with Noctis to do so
> in experimental. It can then be uploaded to unstable after the bookworm
> release.

Agreed as we don't have enough DDs with enough time on hand. I'll certainly be
happy to help, but I can't upload.

-- 
Sdrager,
Blair Noctis

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: