Hi Giovanni!

Giovanni Mascellani <[email protected]> writes:
> Since the original wotsap is not maintained any more, but there are
> quite a few patches that could be applied and improvements that could be
> made, I decided to fork it and begin again its development here:
>
>   https://github.com/giomasce/wotsap
>
> Actually, I will not have a lot of time for it, but hopefully enough to
> fix the current most outstanding issues. I will also update the Debian
> package after this repository.


  That's great news, thank you! also means I don't need to care for the
client side and can concentrate on getting the extraction part right!

> I see two main alternatives:
>
>  * The file "keys" is extended to 8 or 20 bytes record. This is the
> sanest thing, but it is also backward-incompatible. The WOTVERSION
> number should be bumped to 0.3, old clients could not use new files and
> new clients could not use old files (unless they retain compatibility,
> of course).
>
>  * Old files are kept as they are, but another file (e.g., "longkeys")
> is added, which contains 4 or 16 bytes record: each record is the part
> that must be pasted before the corresponding "keys" record in order to
> have the long ID. This is backward-compatible, but really ugly in itself.
>
> I tend to prefer the first alternative, especially if you can keep
> providing 0.2 .wots for some time after the change.

  As wotsap can't cleanly handle the first case right now (it might when
making sure the new fingerprints file is added *at*the*end*) I agree
making an incompatible change is masically unavoidable. Plkease, when
implementing the client consider unsing python-arpy (I started getting
arpy in a shape where we can use it for that but never did anything
more) so the client no longer depends on the ordering of files in the
ar-archive!

  I think the new format should have the folloing changes

 + Get full fingerprints into the keys file
 + change compression from bzip to xz
 + maybe make keys a textfile (newline terminated hex-encoded strings)
   After encryption there should be hardly any difference in size

Christoph

-- 
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857  70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer

Reply via email to