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

[Aaron Griffin]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yeah. All things considered, it's a hefty move, so lets just make the
public fully aware of it.