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

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 18:15:38 EST 2009

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I believe it was decided that we will remove netkit-tftp from the
repo. Do we need to add provides/replaces field in tftp-hpa?  The only
reason not to do that would be if users still want to use netkit-tftp.

Announcement draft (assumes that provides/replaces field will be added
to tftp-hpa):
To replace several orphaned netkit packages that were unmaintained
upstream, we just added inetutils-1.6-2 in the [core] repo. This new
package will provide the following network clients/daemons:

It will be replacing the following packages:

On a related note, netkit-tftp will be remove from the repo in favor
of tftp-hpa. The inetutils tools can also profide a tftp
client/server. It's currently not included in the inetutils package but
we could provide them in a separate package if there is sufficient
demand for it.  Please update your setting/configs accordingly.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list