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

[Eric Bélanger]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
> ftp/ftpd
> rexec/rexecd
> rlogin/rlogind
> rsh/rshd
> talk/talkd
> telnet/telnetd
> rcp.
>
> It will be replacing the following packages:
> core/netkit-telnet
> extra/netkit-ftp
> extra/netkit-rsh
>
> 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.
> =============
>

FYI: I've just moved inetutils to core. I've also removed:
core/netkit-telnet
extra/netkit-ftp
extra/netkit-rsh
extra/netkit-tftp
I haven't touched to tftp-hpa.