[arch-dev-public] [signoff] inetutils-1.5-1

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 11:51:45 EST 2009

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 15:25 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> I checked it and it's a regression from 1.5. I've notified the
>> >>> upstream devs. I'll try to make a patch. I have no idea about the
>> >>> symlinks.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for reporting it, you allow me to be slightly lazier! :)
>> >
>> > I already got an answer from the upstream dev along with a patch.
>> > Please test inetutils-1.6-2.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm not too worried about the symlinks as they can clearly be blown
>> >> away. But if all of us had them, it would at least be worth a news
>> >> item.
>> >>
>> >> -Dan
>> >>
>> Bump. Any signoffs?  Does anyone else got these file conflicts?
> After installing it twice, it returned the telnet binary back to me.
> The package itself is fine, but pacman still deletes files when one
> package replaces files from another.
> Works fine on both architectures.

I didn't get as much signoffs as I wanted (Dan signoffed on Jabber)
but it's somewhat understandable as this is low-usage tools these
days. I presume you  checked at least several clients/servers. Anyhow,
I got the required signoff but I'll wait until Sunday before moving it
to core and removing the packages it replaces. This will give the rest
of the week to test and report problems. BTW, as we'll be replacing
server packages, is this worthy of a front page news?

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list