Hi, Richard Pöttler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li> wrote:
our core-ports inetd, netkit-ftp and netkit-telnet are all based on the very old and unmaintained netkit-* programs and are heavily patched to get more functionality, like IPv6, or even to build with newer compilers.
I'd suggest to use the GNU inetutils i[1] for that purpose instead, because they are actively maintained [2] and direct replacements.
I think it's easy to decide on this, but I have more problems with the package names, because a netkit-ftp build from inetutils sounds not very sensible to me.
I think we have some options here:
1. Keep names as they are 2. Keep inetd, rename netkit-ftp to inetutils-ftp and netkit-telnet to inetutils-telnet 3. Keep inetd, rename netkit-ftp to ftp and netkit-telnet to telnet 4. Rename all to inetutils-{inetd,ftp,telnet} 5. Replace inetd, netkit-ftp and netkit-telnet with one port called inetutils 6. ?
I tend to option 5 because it's the easiest way to maintain, the binaries are very slim and we reduce the number of core ports. Even options 3 and 4 are looking more consistent to me as our current situation.
Opinions?
I would go for option 5, too (fyi) +1 too
Also, I'm maintaining a bit hacked inetutils port on my private repo which only contains the rsh, rcp, and rlogin (old school tools), so I can rename it to inetutils-rsh. Best regards, Jose V Beneyto