[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#29542] rng-tools: New upstream location, new releases
From: |
Leo Famulari |
Subject: |
[bug#29542] rng-tools: New upstream location, new releases |
Date: |
Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:07:42 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) |
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:45:58PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 08:49:09PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> > Hm. Looks legit, no?
>
> I think so but one can never be sure :)
I dug around a bit.
Fedora uses Neil Horman's fork from GitHub (what this patch changes our
source to):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rng-tools.git/tree/rng-tools.spec?id=2aa45beb753b7401fedcbfa3ccd0a4b005510f56#n10
CentOS fetches from SourceForge with patches by Neil Horman:
https://centos.pkgs.org/7/centos-x86_64/rng-tools-5-11.el7.x86_64.rpm.html
Debian uses their own fork that hasn't been touched in 6 years:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/hmh/rng-tools.git/tree/debian/control?id=0235fcf189220aeecc657295b7d3fdd752d3254e
Arch fetches from the old SourceForge project:
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/rng-tools&id=03d210e8ba320849fd19352174a1b082f4ab2b4f#n10
I don't know how to find package sources on SUSE's web page.
So, I'm confident this source is okay. But after more reading, I don't
think we'll need to use rngd after all.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature