Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/py-bcrypt

[Richard PALO <richard%netbsd.org@localhost>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le 11/11/14 00:19, rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost a écrit :
| On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:53:57PM +0100, Richard PALO wrote:
|> Le 04/11/14 22:41, Joerg Sonnenberger a écrit :
|>> Module Name:  pkgsrc Committed By:    joerg Date:             Tue Nov  4
|>> 21:41:20 UTC 2014
|>>
|>> Modified Files: pkgsrc/security/py-bcrypt: Makefile
|>>
|>> Log Message: Add missing dependency for the cffi use.
|>>
|>
|> From the webpage:
|>> This library should be compatible with py-bcrypt and it will
|>> run on Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3 and PyPy 2.0.
|>
|>
|> I wonder if the correct long term remedy is not simply replacing
|> this seemingly _overly complex_ 'alternative' package by the
|> primary upstream package https://pypi.python.org/pypi/py-bcrypt/
|
| From:
|
| http://pythonhosted.org/Flask-User/installation.html#requirements
|
| I see that the 0.4.x version of py-bcrypt is required, which seems
| to be the package you linked on pypi. This was a huge mistake on my
| part for packaging the "wrong" py-bcrypt initially. Would it be
| proper if we were to replace it as you suggested?
|

Since there seems to be only one package depending upon it for now
(that is, prior to the py-trytond 3.4 push) I favour the decision.
Plus there is still 5-6 weeks before the quarterly drop to test...

+1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUYaJEAAoJECAB22fHtp27OfEH/07IG0Z6CSdIUlligo5SUboJ
A7OCirORz0KNs8i1Yw5GuiFUzYE8yn0ep803VwXCLmhbhbCiqsGliUyQpzHvV3ZP
lAfc2My7oUizpqg6YGIGZbvte4IWeFNo3nk4kMLIfAbCIxaNtECwI6cCbpDT4R0/
rPVea636o0N25jSjE2JIblx0WJHJQ3tQ/AY+10CMPJktSVIrvZ7iJPzpNHRNa8N8
Whvrc4K1eC5WnlOkzlTnfty+Pa2JkggytIy4ZDAOcxqnjgee87w2BfawMSXFf0Mc
l40Ej6pKDxpdEFuQfZBcv1rbX3fUFoKjupNw39gdbJ/EjRlSvmlNXDtOHOHaRBw=
=MXOq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----