[arch-dev-public] Replacing common network programs (netkit-*, etc} with GNU inetutils
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Tue Dec 16 08:28:38 EST 2008
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Eric Bélanger
<belanger at 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 at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:46 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>>>>> 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
>> 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
> 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:
> - disabled:
> Which means we will remove:
> 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.
More information about the arch-dev-public