Re: dsniff is dead, long life to dsniff
So, I'm going to upload a new package (python-dsniff) and maintain (or co-maintain, with faidon) dsniff (the classical one) in the meantime. Personally, I'm going to leave the dsniff maintenance when python-dsniff becomes a comparable alternative. Thanks for all your opinions, luciano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003101602.19726.luci...@debian.org
dsniff is dead, long life to dsniff
Please, CC me (my usual account is off-line momentarily) Hi all, I'm the dsniff[1] maintainer, which is a pretty dead project[2]. Dug Song (the upstream) is putting his efforts in rewrite the project in python[3], which is quite limited compared to the previous one. The question is: should I package this new version as a replacement of the previous one, even one there is a big reduction in the feature list? Or, should I create a new package (let's say, python-dsniff) and RM dsniff? luciano [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/dsniff.html [2] http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/ [3] http://code.google.com/p/dsniff/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d2a184d11003090801i3e92bfaav7cc1692f33cee...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dsniff is dead, long life to dsniff
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Luciano Bello lbe...@gmail.com wrote: The question is: should I package this new version as a replacement of the previous one, even one there is a big reduction in the feature list? Or, should I create a new package (let's say, python-dsniff) and RM dsniff? As an occasional dsniff user, I'd rather keep the full (old) version in Debian while the new one is incomplete. If the new package is a Python module it'd be nice to have it also in Debian in order to familiarize ourself with it, but IMHO the original one should not be removed until the new one is full-featured. Regards. -- --- Carlos Galisteo cgalisteo AT k-rolus.net GPG keys fingerprints: 0x8E0076E9 - 939E 3D10 EAA2 A972 3AF2 E25C 26B7 D8E3 8E00 76E9 0x69ADBE65 F888 6FBA 9145 B5A2 C187 66D6 5B8C 027A 69AD BE65 --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/de85d2bf1003091016o46be651coc1fd2b8052339...@mail.gmail.com
Re: dsniff is dead, long life to dsniff
Citando Carlos Galisteo cgalis...@k-rolus.net: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Luciano Bello lbe...@gmail.com wrote: The question is: should I package this new version as a replacement of the previous one, even one there is a big reduction in the feature list? Or, should I create a new package (let's say, python-dsniff) and RM dsniff? As an occasional dsniff user, I'd rather keep the full (old) version in Debian while the new one is incomplete. If the new package is a Python module it'd be nice to have it also in Debian in order to familiarize ourself with it, but IMHO the original one should not be removed until the new one is full-featured. I second that. It´s not so bad in popcon (1483 installs) and I can´t see any serious issue in bts. If it´s a problem to you maintaing old + new dsniff please ping me. I´m interested in keeping this package in Debian. You can also consider Forensics team. Best regards, -- Tiago Bortoletto Vaz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100309170016.9277682i7sljy...@ssl.eumx.net
Re: dsniff is dead, long life to dsniff
Luciano Bello wrote: I'm the dsniff[1] maintainer, which is a pretty dead project[2]. Dug Song (the upstream) is putting his efforts in rewrite the project in python[3], which is quite limited compared to the previous one. The question is: should I package this new version as a replacement of the previous one, even one there is a big reduction in the feature list? Or, should I create a new package (let's say, python-dsniff) and RM dsniff? Dug has gave me his permission and blessing to adopt dsniff (as in, the upstream), keeping the original name. It has been a while (= 2 years) since I was in that discussion -- I was the Debian maintainer back then, had ported dsniff to libnet 1.1 from 1.0 and wanted all these debian/patches to be merged upstream. He mentioned the Python version back then too FWIW. I am lacking free time but if anyone else is up to it (Luciano?), I'd happily collaborate to maintain the original project. In any case, I think that keeping the same name for the Python version would be a mistake. Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b96b17a.3050...@debian.org
