On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 09:33:17AM -0600, Joseph Bisch wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:15:02PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > As can be read in the links from this issue > > https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/issues/325 Armory > > Technologies has stopped working on armory, at least for the time being. > > As can be read in the linked threads, there is now a fork which seemed > > to be (somewhat) official, namely > > https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory and there have been several > > releases there, the latest being 0.94.1. > > > > Maybe it's a good idea to switch the Debian package to the fork? > > Yes, I would say that Goatpig's fork is the most official version of > Armory in development currently. He was the defacto maintainer of the > open source version of Armory at Armory Technologies up until the > company stopped development. > > I won't be able to get to this myself before the weekend at the > earliest (just moved and going to be starting a new job). Patches to > package 0.94.1 are welcome from anyone. Just be sure to base the > packaging off of the pkg-bitcoin repo[0].
I actually got to take a look at this. I decided not to package new versions of Armory until the git tags are signed to verify the integrity of the source code (e.g. so GitHub or someone with access to GitHub's servers cannot modify the code). I have filed a bug[0] upstream asking for Goatpig to sign tags. I hope to be able to package 0.94.1 and future versions of Armory soon, but without signed tags, I think it would be irresponsible of me to package financial software. I just filed the bug upstream, so it might be a while before I hear back from Goatpig. [0] - https://github.com/goatpig/BitcoinArmory/issues/40 Joseph
