[arch-dev-public] Replacing common network programs (netkit-*, etc} with GNU inetutils
Hi, As suggested in FS#12281, we could add inetutils to the repo to replace, among other things, the netkit-* packages which are no longer maintained upstream and mostly orphaned. Inetutils could potentially replace several packages either entirely or partially. Here is a list of network tool that inetutils can provide and the corresponding packages that it might replace. Discussion is below the list. ================== --enable-ftpd N/A --enable-inetd Could replace xinetd --enable-rexecd Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-rlogind Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-rshd Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-syslogd Could replace sysklogd partially : syslogd --enable-talkd N/A --enable-telnetd Could replace netkit-telnet --enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon) --enable-uucpd N/A --enable-ftp Could replace netkit-ftp --enable-ping Could replace iputils partially : ping --enable-ping6 Could replace iputils partially : ping6 --enable-rcp Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-rlogin Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-rsh Could replace netkit-rsh --enable-logger Could replace util-linux-ng partially : logger --enable-talk N/A --enable-telnet Could replace netkit-telnet (a xinet daemon) --enable-tftp Could replace netkit-tftp Could replace tftp-hpa --enable-whois Could replace whois --enable-ifconfig Could replace net-tools partially : ifconfig ================== Point A) If we decide to not replace parts of packages in the repo, then we disable syslogd, ping, ping6, logger and ifconfig. Point B) From Greg comments in FR, we should keep the current xinetd (best inet implementation) and whois (actively maintained) standalone packages. So we disable inetd and whois. Let me know if you agree/disagree on following Point A & B. Other points of discussion: tftp: inetutils'tftp is to be run via xinetd like netkit-tftp. tftp-hpa uses a rc.d daemon script. I don't know what is best and if it's something we should worry about. In fact, I don't know anything about xinetd so I'll need to read docs to get the daemon setup correctly. Does anyone has experience in xinetd-style daemon script? About the talk{d}: we recently moved netkit-talk to unsupported. Do we build them in inetutils? ftpd: do we add the ftp daemon? We already have several of these (probably better ones) in extra. There won't be any conflict so we could still add it. uucpd: I don't know what it does. Do we add it? Basically, this thread is to discuss if we add inetutils in the repo (probably in core as netkit-tenet is in core) and what tools the inetutils package should contain, i.e. what package should be replaced by it. BTW, I don't have any experience with several of these clients/servers, so help in creating the deamon file (especially the xinetd ones) or testing might be necessary. FTR, I have a rough PKGBUILD draft if someone is interested.. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
Hi,
As suggested in FS#12281, we could add inetutils to the repo to replace, among other things, the netkit-* packages which are no longer maintained upstream and mostly orphaned. Inetutils could potentially replace several packages either entirely or partially. Here is a list of network tool that inetutils can provide and the corresponding packages that it might replace. Discussion is below the list.
Point A) If we decide to not replace parts of packages in the repo, then we disable syslogd, ping, ping6, logger and ifconfig. Point B) From Greg comments in FR, we should keep the current xinetd (best inet implementation) and whois (actively maintained) standalone packages. So we disable inetd and whois.
Let me know if you agree/disagree on following Point A & B.
A: I feel like we should leave ping/ping6 where they are (unless these are drastically improved versions, which I doubt). Same with the other things you named- I'd rather keep those out of it. B: xinetd seems like a good inetd implementation, so I would stick with it being standalone.
Other points of discussion:
tftp: inetutils'tftp is to be run via xinetd like netkit-tftp. tftp-hpa uses a rc.d daemon script. I don't know what is best and if it's something we should worry about. In fact, I don't know anything about xinetd so I'll need to read docs to get the daemon setup correctly. Does anyone has experience in xinetd-style daemon script?
About the talk{d}: we recently moved netkit-talk to unsupported. Do we build them in inetutils?
Since it all comes in one package, it probably wouldn't hurt to build it.
ftpd: do we add the ftp daemon? We already have several of these (probably better ones) in extra. There won't be any conflict so we could still add it.
uucpd: I don't know what it does. Do we add it?
Basically, this thread is to discuss if we add inetutils in the repo (probably in core as netkit-tenet is in core) and what tools the inetutils package should contain, i.e. what package should be replaced by it.
Of the big list, I would vote for the following: ftp/ftpd, r*, telnet/telnetd, tftp/tftpd, uucp/uucpd (maybe?)
Eric Bélanger schrieb:
--enable-ftpd N/A
Wouldn't hurt to have a simple ftpd there, but we don't really need it, we have bftpd, proftpd, vsftpd, ...
--enable-inetd Could replace xinetd
Is it compatible with xinetd's configuration? If not, I would be careful!
--enable-rexecd Could replace netkit-rsh
--enable-rlogind Could replace netkit-rsh
--enable-rshd Could replace netkit-rsh
I'm fine with all of those (actually, I don't use them).
--enable-syslogd Could replace sysklogd partially : syslogd
We need neither sysklogd nor syslogd, syslog-ng is superior.
--enable-talkd N/A --enable-telnetd Could replace netkit-telnet
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
--enable-uucpd N/A
--enable-ftp Could replace netkit-ftp
All of the above are fine with me.
--enable-ping Could replace iputils partially : ping
--enable-ping6 Could replace iputils partially : ping6
iputils is still maintained, right? In that case, we keep iputils.
--enable-rcp Could replace netkit-rsh
--enable-rlogin Could replace netkit-rsh
--enable-rsh Could replace netkit-rsh
Fine with me!
--enable-logger Could replace util-linux-ng partially : logger
No, util-linux-ng is still maintained. Unless this logger has more capabilities.
--enable-talk N/A
--enable-telnet Could replace netkit-telnet (a xinet daemon)
--enable-tftp Could replace netkit-tftp Could replace tftp-hpa
--enable-whois Could replace whois
Do it.
--enable-ifconfig Could replace net-tools partially : ifconfig
Hmm, I'd keep this as well.
Point A) If we decide to not replace parts of packages in the repo, then we disable syslogd, ping, ping6, logger and ifconfig. Point B) From Greg comments in FR, we should keep the current xinetd (best inet implementation) and whois (actively maintained) standalone packages. So we disable inetd and whois.
I agree with both.
uucpd: I don't know what it does. Do we add it?
It's no extra work, just --enable-xxx in this package: I'd say yes, someone will probably need it.
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have: - enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd - disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 % I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Thanks Eric! It's not a lot of packages being killed, but this is a step in the right direction for sure with this whole package cleanup thing on the mind. -Dan
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Great. I agree with the netkit-tftp sentiment too. Is it possible to enable tftp/tftpd in this package, and let tftp-hpa install side-by-side with it? I haven't looked into it
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
--enable-tftpd Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Great. I agree with the netkit-tftp sentiment too. Is it possible to enable tftp/tftpd in this package, and let tftp-hpa install side-by-side with it? I haven't looked into it
It would be possible. The conflicting files are: /usr/bin/tftp /usr/share/man/man1/tftp.1.gz We could rename them (e.g., by adding a -gnu suffix) to fix the conflict. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Eric B�langer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote: > > --enable-tftpd > Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) > Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon)
Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Great. I agree with the netkit-tftp sentiment too. Is it possible to enable tftp/tftpd in this package, and let tftp-hpa install side-by-side with it? I haven't looked into it
It would be possible. The conflicting files are: /usr/bin/tftp /usr/share/man/man1/tftp.1.gz
We could rename them (e.g., by adding a -gnu suffix) to fix the conflict.
Should we also rename the tftp daemon related files for consistency? Maybe a less clumsy solution would be to disable tftp in inetutils but to have a seperate inetutils-tftp package. This way users could install inetutils with the tftp package of their choice. Any opinion? BTW, as inetutils doesn't provide the rexec client, I'll add the netkit one in the inetutils package. This way all netkit-rsh tools with be accounted for. I'll also disable uucpd. We don't have any client for it in the repo. So it make little sense to provide the daemon. FTR, I tried to get it to work by using the uucp package in unsupported but it didn't work. I don't know what could be wrong (client, xinitd daemon script or wrong config/usage). Anyway , it's in decline[1] and uucpd doesn't even have any doc (man or info page) so I gave up. If someone else want to give it a try go ahead. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#Decline All daemon scripts except tftp are ready. They might need some tweaks but I can connect to the daemon. Once we agree on wheter we include tftp or not, I'll put inetutils in testing. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote: >> >> --enable-tftpd >> Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) >> Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon) > > Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that > includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include > that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. > I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a > no-go for me.
Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT router...
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Great. I agree with the netkit-tftp sentiment too. Is it possible to enable tftp/tftpd in this package, and let tftp-hpa install side-by-side with it? I haven't looked into it
It would be possible. The conflicting files are: /usr/bin/tftp /usr/share/man/man1/tftp.1.gz
We could rename them (e.g., by adding a -gnu suffix) to fix the conflict.
Should we also rename the tftp daemon related files for consistency? Maybe a less clumsy solution would be to disable tftp in inetutils but to have a seperate inetutils-tftp package. This way users could install inetutils with the tftp package of their choice. Any opinion?
BTW, as inetutils doesn't provide the rexec client, I'll add the netkit one in the inetutils package. This way all netkit-rsh tools with be accounted for.
I'll also disable uucpd. We don't have any client for it in the repo. So it make little sense to provide the daemon. FTR, I tried to get it to work by using the uucp package in unsupported but it didn't work. I don't know what could be wrong (client, xinitd daemon script or wrong config/usage). Anyway , it's in decline[1] and uucpd doesn't even have any doc (man or info page) so I gave up. If someone else want to give it a try go ahead.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#Decline
All daemon scripts except tftp are ready. They might need some tweaks but I can connect to the daemon. Once we agree on wheter we include tftp or not, I'll put inetutils in testing.
Hmm, anyone that actually uses tftp care to comment? Last time I used it was to flash a WRT router, so it was about 5 minutes of usage.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote: >>> >>> --enable-tftpd >>> Could replace netkit-tftp (a xinet daemon) >>> Could replace tftp-hpa (a rc.d daemon) >> >> Some broken Intel E100 nics can't netboot from a modern TFTP server that >> includes the blksize extension. I know OpenBSD's tftpd doesn't include >> that extension, and tftp-hpa has an option to disable that extension. >> I would be fine with replacing netkit-tftp, but replacing tftp-hpa is a >> no-go for me. > > Yeah, when this came up, I think I mentioned that "tftp-hpa is needed > for something". I was thinking hardware support... if I remember > right, I think it was the only tftp that could push to my older WRT > router... > >
Sure. If we enaable tftp/tftpd in inetutils, it will conflict with tftp-hpa and we might not want that as someone might want to use both packages. We should then disable tftp/tftpd in inetutils and keep tftp-hpa in the repo. As to netkit-tftp, we could either keep it or remove it. Another messier solution would be to enable tftp/tftpd in inetutils but to rename the conflicting files (they would be the tftp client and its man page)
To get this going, I'll summarize. It looks like there is a general consensus of adding inetutils to replace some of the current packages (no-one objected yet) and to follow points A & B. So we have:
- enabled: ftp/ftpd rexecd rlogin/rlogind rsh/rshd rcp talk/talkd telnet/telnetd uucpd
- disabled: inetd syslogd tftp/tftpd ping ping6 logger whois ifconfig
Which means we will remove: netkit-ftp netkit-rsh netkit-telnet
I also think that we should remove netkit-tftp unless it has functionnalities that tftp-hpa doesn't. It is orphaned and is less popular than tftp-hpa. Usage stats: tftp-hpa=4.15 % and netkit-tftp=1.11 %
I'll start working on a package containing the tools that I listed above as enabled. As there's plenty of daemon scripts to write and test, you have a good 1-2 weeks to think about it and suggest changes.
Great. I agree with the netkit-tftp sentiment too. Is it possible to enable tftp/tftpd in this package, and let tftp-hpa install side-by-side with it? I haven't looked into it
It would be possible. The conflicting files are: /usr/bin/tftp /usr/share/man/man1/tftp.1.gz
We could rename them (e.g., by adding a -gnu suffix) to fix the conflict.
Should we also rename the tftp daemon related files for consistency? Maybe a less clumsy solution would be to disable tftp in inetutils but to have a seperate inetutils-tftp package. This way users could install inetutils with the tftp package of their choice. Any opinion?
BTW, as inetutils doesn't provide the rexec client, I'll add the netkit one in the inetutils package. This way all netkit-rsh tools with be accounted for.
I'll also disable uucpd. We don't have any client for it in the repo. So it make little sense to provide the daemon. FTR, I tried to get it to work by using the uucp package in unsupported but it didn't work. I don't know what could be wrong (client, xinitd daemon script or wrong config/usage). Anyway , it's in decline[1] and uucpd doesn't even have any doc (man or info page) so I gave up. If someone else want to give it a try go ahead.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#Decline
All daemon scripts except tftp are ready. They might need some tweaks but I can connect to the daemon. Once we agree on wheter we include tftp or not, I'll put inetutils in testing.
Hmm, anyone that actually uses tftp care to comment? Last time I used it was to flash a WRT router, so it was about 5 minutes of usage.
I'm leaning toward disabling tftp in inetutils as it's a low usage protocol and we already have tftp-hpa in the repo. We can always add a seperate package for it if there is a demand for it.
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Eric Belanger
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Jan de Groot
-
Thomas Bächler