On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 08:53:44PM +0200, Patrik Schindler wrote: > > Hello Patrik, rsh-redone was made in a different era where computers were > > slow and encryption was expensive. > > I encounter this reasoning from time to time in different contexts. With all > due respect for the hard work of package maintainers and devs: I think, this > decision should be left to the user. My personal reason: I'd like to see a > regular packaged rexec(d) for talking to my old AS/400 which has no > cryptographic options.
With my package maintainer hat on: it is not our duty to add functionality to the software we package. With my upstream developer hat on: I have only so much time I can spend myself on software development, and because the reasons I have given I'm not going to spend that time on rsh-redone. > But I accept your reply and will go forward to create my own rexec(d) > packages then. That is great! Feel free to base your work on the source code of rsh-redone. If you want to take over development of rsh-redone, that is fine as well, and then I'd be happy to upload new versions of it to Debian. I've uploaded the full history to GitHub and GitLab, so you can fork the repository from there if you wish: https://github.com/gsliepen/rsh-redone https://gitlab.com/gsliepen/rsh-redone > > rsh-redone is in maintenance mode; I will not add any more functionality to > > it. > > Is there any way to mark this package accordingly? There's no standard way to do so. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <g...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
