[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150110171033.GA25216@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:10:33 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Owl 3.1-stable
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 07:58:37PM +0300, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> Almost all criticism is justified:
Right.
> kernel 2.6.18 instead of 2.6.32,
We'd receive (almost?) as much criticism for RHEL6'ish kernels as well.
And perhaps almost as much even if we went with RHEL7 already, although
I think then the criticism would not be justified (it'd be more of a
typical misunderstanding).
> ancient glibc (and many other packages that we can't update without
> updating it first), old SSH... also, some packages are likely to be
> dropped, and some other should be added.
Right.
> > Those of you who read Russian might want to check out the
> > comments.
>
> Been there, seen the comments. Some are really hmm... unpleasant,
> but even those are true: we have really much to do in -current,
> once we've released a 3.1-stable and now aren't required to look
> back.
Ideally (for Owl), yes. But I am not sure this will happen in practice,
like it did not after some past releases. To me, Owl has become a
relatively less important project (compared to other things I should be
doing) than it was in 2002 or so, and future direction is unclear (it
would have been clearer if we wanted to treat Owl as our "main project"
and would be OK spending lots of time maintaining a larger Owl).
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
