On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmanisc...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jan de Groot <j...@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 <snowmanisc...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Eric Bélanger >>>> >> <snowmanisc...@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. =============