On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Yeah. All things considered, it's a hefty move, so lets just make the public fully aware of it.
