[arch-dev-public] Replacing common network programs (netkit-*, etc} with GNU inetutils

[Eric Belanger]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Eric Bélanger
> <belanger at 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 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:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> --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.