XSF Discussion - 2018-05-11

  1. Ge0rG

    So the new ejabberd MUC avatars are breaking yaxim, because it parses the presence-from-MUC-bare-JID as a null-named participant. Sigh.

  2. MattJ

    Why is the MUC sending presence?

  3. Zash

    Le wat

  4. jonasw

    MattJ, to push their vcard avatar hash

  5. MattJ

    That's silly

  6. Zash

    Hnnnnng

  7. jonasw

    MattJ, is it?

  8. Kev

    I imagine that's going to break various clients.

  9. jonasw

    I /think/ that folks checked before they started implementing that and most clients were fine

  10. MattJ

    I'm all for MUCs having avatars (I've implemented it in the past)

  11. Zash

    Something in a message would probably work better wrt backwards compat

  12. Kev

    jonasw: Ok, could be I'm wrong.

  13. Zash

    Eg like the subject

  14. jonasw

    worst which happened in unmaintained clients was a ghost user

  15. jonasw

    (*some* maintained client broke *ahem*)

  16. Kev

    So it doesn't break clients. Other than those clients that it breaks? :)

  17. SamWhited

    > There's a reason we so fanatically drive at this goal at Joyent, and it's not because we're smarter or better than anyone else. It's because we've been burned by invalid abstractions of our own doing so many times that we've programmed a Jabber bot to constantly berate us with reminders of how our hubris around abstractions led us to failure.

  18. SamWhited

    Interesting little tidbit from a blog post; Joyent is using XMPP apparently.

  19. SamWhited

    Or was in 2011 at least.

  20. pep.

    Syndace, no issue if I package your omemo lib (+ deps) for Arch? :)

  21. pep.

    Just on AUR for now, -git packages

  22. Syndace

    pep.: Please go for it :)

  23. pep.

    how is the audit coming for https://github.com/Syndace/python-xeddsa :-°

  24. pep.

    And *some* kind of testing would be nice