[arch-dev-public] proftpd status
Hi, I'm trying to fix the rc.d script of proftpd. The deamon seems to start and work correctly as it ask for username/password but I always get a: 530 Login incorrect. Login failed. This only happens on x86_64. I get the same problem with the package currently in extra. As no one has complained and James confirmed that it worked for him at the last bug squash day, I assume it is a config/hardware issue but I simply can't put my finger on the problem. Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs. Eric -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs.
Another option might be to release it to community (or maybe that is what you meant by unsupported). Maybe one of the TUs would want to take it over.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, eliott wrote:
Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs.
Another option might be to release it to community (or maybe that is what you meant by unsupported). Maybe one of the TUs would want to take it over.
Yes, I meant removing it from extra so it'll go to eitherunsupported or community if a TU is interested. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, eliott wrote:
Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs.
Another option might be to release it to community (or maybe that is what you meant by unsupported). Maybe one of the TUs would want to take it over.
Yes, I meant removing it from extra so it'll go to eitherunsupported or community if a TU is interested.
Speaking on behalf of myself, I think it would be smart if we started shedding some packages from extra that we don't really use- we shouldn't feel obliged to maintain them just because someone else put them there and stuck us with them. Package maintenance can be a real bore if you aren't even interested in the package you are working on. So phrased shortly- if you don't use it and other devs don't have interest, throw it to unsupported where it may or may not get picked up by a TU. -Dan
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Dan McGee wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, eliott wrote:
Because of this and because I don't use the package anymore, it would be better if someone else maintains it. Anyone interested? I have the updated PKGBUILD and script. If not we could: a) move it to unsupported as we already have several ftp servers in extra b) I would be willing to continue to maintain it but I'll need someone else to build/test/upload the x86_64 package as I can't test it. c) this is the more cumbersome. I could continue to maintain and build for both arches but every update will go to testing first for signoffs.
Another option might be to release it to community (or maybe that is what you meant by unsupported). Maybe one of the TUs would want to take it over.
Yes, I meant removing it from extra so it'll go to eitherunsupported or community if a TU is interested.
Speaking on behalf of myself, I think it would be smart if we started shedding some packages from extra that we don't really use- we shouldn't feel obliged to maintain them just because someone else put them there and stuck us with them. Package maintenance can be a real bore if you aren't even interested in the package you are working on.
So phrased shortly- if you don't use it and other devs don't have interest, throw it to unsupported where it may or may not get picked up by a TU.
-Dan
Yeah, I have a tendency of maintaining too much packages and having problems of letting them go. Anyhow, I've orphaned proftpd and above options b) and c) are no longer available. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
participants (3)
-
Dan McGee
-
eliott
-
Eric Belanger