Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add unmaintained dlopen_derive advisory #1735

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Aug 19, 2023
Merged

Add unmaintained dlopen_derive advisory #1735

merged 2 commits into from Aug 19, 2023

Conversation

smoelius
Copy link
Contributor

@smoelius smoelius commented Jul 30, 2023

dlopen_derive hasn't been updated since June 9, 2019.

dlopen_derive depends on quote = "0.6.12" and syn = "0.15.34". Versions 1.0.0 of these dependencies were published on August 13, 2019. The 0.* versions haven't received updates since.

Recommended alternatives

@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

smoelius commented Aug 7, 2023

Is there anything else I need to do to justify this PR?

And, separately, I have the following question. dlopen, which depends on dlopen_derive, is also unmaintained. I wrote this advisory thinking:

  • If (hypothetically) a project depends directly on dlopen_derive, it will get a cargo-audit warning for dlopen_derive.
  • If a project depends on dlopen, then it also (indirectly) depends on dlopen_derive, and so the prjoect will get a cargo-audit warning for dlopen_derive.

Is this a reasonable approach? Or, should this PR's description be adjusted to mention dlopen? Or, should there be a separate advisory for dlopen specifically?

@amousset
Copy link
Member

Is there anything else I need to do to justify this PR?

No, according to our policy the unresponsiveness on the provided GitHub issue (for more than one year here) is enough.

Is this a reasonable approach? Or, should this PR's description be adjusted to mention dlopen? Or, should there be a separate advisory for dlopen specifically?

I think your approach is reasonable. Maybe also mention the dlopen crate in the body of the advisory to make things clearer.

@smoelius
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think your approach is reasonable. Maybe also mention the dlopen crate in the body of the advisory to make things clearer.

How is what I just pushed?

@amousset amousset merged commit f7511e0 into rustsec:main Aug 19, 2023
1 check passed
@amousset
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants