Backport a version-agnostic form of crypto 1.5 compatibility #1292
Comments
Belatedly realized a side effect of this is that 2.3+ could ostensibly relax its version requirement for Cryptography if we preserve the either-or code during the merge. However that cat's out of the bag - users of Paramiko 2.3+ are already going to be on Cryptography 1.5+ - so it doesn't really seem worthwhile. And esp re: crypto libraries we want to be pushing users to get used to updating periodically instead of staying on old versions, when we have a choice... |
Updating travis-ci at this point too so it tests some older cryptography versions (for 2.0-2.2, crypto 1.1 and 1.5 as well as implicit latest; then when I merge to 2.3, I should preserve some of this so that it tests 1.5 and latest only.) |
FWIW I am unable to even return to older cryptography versions on macOS 10.12, so I'm basically relying on Travis here (tho I can test on a container locally if I gotta). Also of note, I'm very slightly modifying the logic in the code, pulling the setup of the signatures/etc inside the |
Rest of merge was resolved with '-s ours' to keep those changes back on the old branches only.
Should be all done, including making sure not to nuke the improved Travis "test some older Cryptos" additions (which...I almost nuked in the merge. heh.) |
Is there any rough ETA on this getting released? So far as I can see, these changes never landed in master, nor are on the 2.4.2 tag? https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/commits/2.4.2/paramiko/dsskey.py, for example, lacks 35b1f57, and I don't see related changes in master either? https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/blob/master/paramiko/dsskey.py The underlying warning messages are polluting the output from some of our tools :) |
@twirrim Are you sure you're seeing this exact issue (and not something like #1379 which is open but I'll be merging it RSN)? As near as I can tell the changes from this ticket made it into 2.0 and on up through master; in fact master even did away with the if/else part of this and just uses |
Increasingly vexed by the enormous reams of warnings spat out by Paramiko <2.3 during test runs, caused by a lack of #979.
However, it's not nice to backport that ticket itself (because then dependencies will change in tertiary releases - I'm more flexible these days but that's beyond the pale) so I want to see if it's feasible to rewrite it for 2.0+ in a "if X else Y" fashion.
Ought to be straightforward? Famous last words...
Remember to make sure that the merge from 2.2 to 2.3 uses
-s ours
or similar, so that 2.3+ goes back to assuming what it's able.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: