https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/issues/173 - bug closed w/o resolution

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/issues/173 - bug closed w/o resolution

Alex Samorukov
Hi,

As OpenSC user it is unclear for me why bug 173 was closed without any
resolution. From my personal point of view proposed patch was not able
to cause any issues for OpenSC users. I am agree that problem is
probably with standard compliance, but i don`t understand why OpenSC
should drop support of popular hardware because of this reason. E.g.
ACPI code in the Linux kernel supports many exceptions or buggy
chipsets. I don`t see any benefits that users with similar problems will
use third-party patches instead. It would be great if other developers
can take a look on this issue.

If my patch is done in a wrong way - please recommend how to do it
properly, but i think that closing real issue (even if it is caused by
wrong windows official driver) is not a good approach.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/issues/173 - bug closed w/o resolution

Ludovic Rousseau
2013/8/4 Alex Samorukov <[hidden email]>:
> Hi,

Hello,

> As OpenSC user it is unclear for me why bug 173 was closed without any
> resolution. From my personal point of view proposed patch was not able
> to cause any issues for OpenSC users. I am agree that problem is
> probably with standard compliance, but i don`t understand why OpenSC
> should drop support of popular hardware because of this reason. E.g.
> ACPI code in the Linux kernel supports many exceptions or buggy
> chipsets. I don`t see any benefits that users with similar problems will
> use third-party patches instead. It would be great if other developers
> can take a look on this issue.
>
> If my patch is done in a wrong way - please recommend how to do it
> properly, but i think that closing real issue (even if it is caused by
> wrong windows official driver) is not a good approach.

Viktor tried to explain why your code is not accepted. You are
patching a core function src/pkcs11/framework-pkcs15.c to fix a bug
for a non standard card.

The correct way to add specific code is to use/create a card-* and/or
pkcs15-* file.

Bye

--
 Dr. Ludovic Rousseau

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/issues/173 - bug closed w/o resolution

Viktor Tarasov-3
In reply to this post by Alex Samorukov
Le 04/08/2013 18:54, Alex Samorukov a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> As OpenSC user it is unclear for me why bug 173 was closed without any
> resolution. From my personal point of view proposed patch was not able
> to cause any issues for OpenSC users. I am agree that problem is
> probably with standard compliance, but i don`t understand why OpenSC
> should drop support of popular hardware because of this reason. E.g.
> ACPI code in the Linux kernel supports many exceptions or buggy
> chipsets. I don`t see any benefits that users with similar problems will
> use third-party patches instead. It would be great if other developers
> can take a look on this issue.
>
> If my patch is done in a wrong way - please recommend how to do it
> properly, but i think that closing real issue (even if it is caused by
> wrong windows official driver) is not a good approach.


Once more
I invite your to (re)read the comments of this pull request
and find there the proposal of how to 'do it properly'.

Your current patch proposal is not acceptable for number of reasons,
one of them is that there is a possibility to 'do it properly'.

'Do it properly' and create a new pull request.

Best wishes,
Viktor.


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your SQL database under version control now!
> Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
> caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
> version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Opensc-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensc-devel
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensc-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/issues/173 - bug closed w/o resolution

Alex Samorukov
On 08/04/2013 09:50 PM, Viktor Tarasov wrote:
> Once more
> I invite your to (re)read the comments of this pull request
> and find there the proposal of how to 'do it properly'.
>
> Your current patch proposal is not acceptable for number of reasons,
> one of them is that there is a possibility to 'do it properly'.
>
> 'Do it properly' and create a new pull request.
Ok, thanks for the explanation, will try to do this.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Opensc-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensc-devel