On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jan de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 15:25 -0500, Eric Bélanger wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> >> >> 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?
