Bug#982135: ITP: bearssl -- BearSSL is an implementation of the SSL/TLS protocol (RFC 5246) written in C
Hello,
I have removed the patch, it wasn’t good idea.
The exe binary doesn’t affect debian package.
So I just updates the d/source/include-binary file.
Thanks
Jan
> On 1 Oct 2021, at 12:02, Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2021 19:18:43 +0100 Jan Mojzis <jan.mojzis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Package: wnpp
>> Severity: wishlist
>> Owner: Jan Mojzis <jan.mojzis@gmail.com>
>> * Package name : bearssl
>> Version : 0.6
>> Upstream Author : Thomas Pornin <pornin@bolet.org>
>> * URL : https://bearssl.org
>> * License : MIT
>> Programming Lang: C
>> Description : BearSSL is an implementation of the SSL/TLS protocol (RFC 5246) written in C
>> BearSSL is an implementation of the SSL/TLS protocol (RFC 5246) written in C. It aims at offering the following features:
>> - Be correct and secure. In particular, insecure protocol versions and choices of algorithms are not supported, by design; cryptographic algorithm implementations are constant-time by default.
>> - Be small, both in RAM and code footprint. For instance, a minimal server implementation may fit in about 20 kilobytes of compiled code and 25 kilobytes of RAM.
>> - Be highly portable. BearSSL targets not only “big” operating systems like Linux and Windows, but also small embedded systems and even special contexts like bootstrap code.
>> - Be feature-rich and extensible. SSL/TLS has many defined cipher suites and extensions; BearSSL should implement most of them, and allow extra algorithm implementations to be added afterwards, possibly from third parties
>> Library doesn't have compatible API with mainstream OpenSSL.
>> And it's not intended as an OpenSSL 1-1 replacement.
>> I'm using this software and I'm going to maintain using https://salsa.debian.org/.
>> I need sponsor.
>
> Please replace the exe removing patch with a Files-Excluded rule in d/copyright. This is a repack then, which has to be reflected in the version string.
> Else this looks good to me.
>
> The usual process to ask for sponsors is filing an RFS. It will get more attention then.
Reply to: