I dared to update the BOINC software on my Linux system also according to the commit “Merge pull request #6611 from BOINC/dpa_submit51” from 2025-10-22 (BOINC client version 8.3.0).
I got this software revision to work for a computation project mostly as expected.
But I noticed then also remaining open issues.
The service journal contains information like the following.

Sonne:~ # journalctl --since '2025-10-25 17:28:18' --identifier=boinc
Okt 25 17:28:18 Sonne boinc[2615]: Authorization required, but no authorization protocol specified
Okt 25 17:28:18 Sonne boinc[2615]: Authorization required, but no authorization protocol specified
Okt 25 17:28:19 Sonne boinc[2615]: Authorization required, but no authorization protocol specified
Okt 25 17:28:19 Sonne boinc[2615]: Authorization required, but no authorization protocol specified
Okt 25 17:28:19 Sonne boinc[2615]: 25-Oct-2025 17:28:19 [---] Received signal 15
Okt 25 17:28:20 Sonne boinc[2615]: 25-Oct-2025 17:28:20 [---] Exiting
…

A special hint was logged twice per second for a while here.
Thus I am looking again for corresponding solution approaches.
How do you think about to support the avoidance of such messages any more?

Maybe you should install/use a stable version versus a "work-in-progress" / nightly build that can contain bugs.

Official BOINC repository (all versions) https://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php

This is a known issue: https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/2256
Also, we have a fix for it but it isn't ready fore release yet.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

In reply to Vitalii Koshura's message of 26 Oct 2025:

This is a known issue: https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/2256

I became also curious how the software evolution will be continued for a topic like “"No protocol specified" message”.

I assume that some developers would be aware that a questionable logging frequency can hinder participation in known research projects.

Also, we have a fix for it but it isn't ready fore release yet.

Can any workarounds be reconsidered in the meantime?

Can any workarounds be reconsidered in the meantime?

Just read the link I provided above and you will find several workarounds there. Feel free to choose the one you like the most.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

The mentioned message text can be found in a corresponding development repository.
Another look at information from the commit “Clarify authorization failure reason strings sent back to the client” might become more helpful.

• created by Jon Turney on 2015-03-16
  
• committed by Adam Jackson on 2019-07-23
  

How will collateral evolution be discussed further?

Are we still waiting on progress for a topic like “client (Unix): add support for idle detection in a separate process” (from 2025-04-11)?

Is the error detection still incomplete in the proposed implementation of the function “get_idle_time_from_daemon”?
Is the source code improvable also according to a printf() call?

How will collateral evolution be discussed further?

It will not.

Are we still waiting on progress for a topic like “client (Unix): add support for idle detection in a separate process” (from 2025-04-11)?

No, we are waiting for a dependency to be ready for installation.

Is the error detection still incomplete in the proposed implementation of the function “get_idle_time_from_daemon”?

No, it's complete.

Is the source code improvable also according to a printf() call?

No.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

In reply to Vitalii Koshura's message of 27 Oct 2025:

How will collateral evolution be discussed further?

It will not.

Clarification attempts are distributed over several information systems.

Are we still waiting on progress for a topic like “client (Unix): add support for idle detection in a separate process” (from 2025-04-11)?

No, we are waiting for a dependency to be ready for installation.

I would appreciate if you can be more specific for this detail.

Is the error detection still incomplete in the proposed implementation of the function “get_idle_time_from_daemon”?

No, it's complete.

Can source code analysis tools point further development concerns out?

In reply to Markus Elfring's message of 27 Oct 2025:

Clarification attempts are distributed over several information systems.

Ok.

I would appreciate if you can be more specific for this detail.

I will not go into details.
Briefly, we are waiting for this software to be ready for delivery via known sources.
There might be the case that we will come to some other decision regarding its distribution, but this is definitely not something I'm ready to share.

Can source code analysis tools point further development concerns out?

You were told several times: want to make improvements - go ahead and do them. No need to suggest us that we need to change function A to function B just because some static analyzer told you that. We will not spend our time digging through your suggestions. You want to improve something - do it, code it, test it, and then send us a patch for review. I remember that you are banned on BOINC GitHub repo. This still doesn't stop you from making a good looking PR in your fork. Do all the listed above, send us the link to your finished PR, and we will decide what will we do next.
I don't want to spend time just making useless agrues with you again.
And please keep in mind that you were banished from this forum two years ago as well.
Try to not repeat your mistakes.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

Briefly, we are waiting for this software to be ready for delivery via known sources.

Several users will be curious how developments will evolve further also for a tool like idle_detect (by James C. Owens).

Can source code analysis tools point further development concerns out?

You were told several times: want to make improvements - go ahead and do them.

Several adjustments happened through the years.

No need to suggest us that we need to change function A to function B just because some static analyzer told you that.

Some development ideas are hard to “sell” somehow because of general change resistance and questionable resources.

I remember that you are banned on BOINC GitHub repo.

You activated this blockage, didn't you?

I don't want to spend time just making useless agrues with you again.

Circumstances might evolve in ways so that further adjustments and desirable improvements can become more likely.

Several users will be curious how developments will evolve further also for a tool like idle_detect (by James C. Owens).

You an read this in my blog.

Some development ideas are hard to “sell” somehow because of general change resistance and questionable resources.

Then why did you write all this? If it's hard to sell - then either stop selling or start doing it better.

You activated this blockage, didn't you?

Yes, and your last several posts here proved I did a right thing.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

In reply to Vitalii Koshura's message of 27 Oct 2025:

If it's hard to sell - then either stop selling or start doing it better.

I dared to touch items which might be too challenging or occasionally “unwanted” because of other factors.

In reply to Markus Elfring's message of 27 Oct 2025:

I dared to touch items which might be too challenging or occasionally “unwanted” because of other factors.

You know, when I read your messages, I usually ask myself two questions:
1. Do I speak to a real person or it's just an AI bot that sends these messages?
2. If I speak to a real person - what is the purpose of these messages?

And I still havent found an answer.
So please stop writing nonsense.

For moderators: please close this thread. It went offtop, and the answer to the original question was already provided. Thank you in advance.

---

BOINC maintainer.
For any insight, check my BOINC Development Blog.

You can probably get more constructive impressions from public development activities.
Would you find any of them interesting and helpful for your needs?

In reply to Vitalii Koshura's message of 27 Oct 2025:

For moderators: please close this thread. It went offtop, and the answer to the original question was already provided. Thank you in advance.

I agree.