On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmanisc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > ============= >
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.