[RFC] use GNU inetutils for core-ports inetd, netkit-ftp, netkit-telnet
Hello, 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? best regards Juergen [1] http://directory.fsf.org/project/inetutils/ [2] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.inetutils.bugs http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.inetutils.cvs -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
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). bye richi (namenlos)
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
Juergen Daubert [2008-09-09 11:50]: Hi,
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.
I'm voting to go with 5 as well. Thanks, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Tilman Sauerbeck schrieb:
Juergen Daubert [2008-09-09 11:50]:
Hi,
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.
I'm voting to go with 5 as well.
My vote for Option 5! When do you plan to release CRUX 2.5, roughly? Regards, Clemens
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:50:12 +0200 Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li> wrote:
5. Replace inetd, netkit-ftp and netkit-telnet with one port called inetutils 6. ?
7. Profit -- Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
On 09/09/08 09:50 Juergen Daubert wrote:
Hello,
Ahoy, I thin it's fine to switch as long as the replacement tools work as good as the netkit counterpart.
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:
5. Replace inetd, netkit-ftp and netkit-telnet with one port called inetutils
removed weird options ;-) Regards, Simone -- Simone Rota Bergamo, Italy - http://www.varlock.com
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:02:38PM +0000, Simone Rota wrote:
On 09/09/08 09:50 Juergen Daubert wrote:
Hello,
Ahoy,
I thin it's fine to switch as long as the replacement tools work as good as the netkit counterpart.
As far as I can see, yes. I've prepared a port [1], so further testing can be done. best regards Juergen [1] httpup sync http://jue.li/crux/ports/#inetutils inetutils -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
participants (7)
-
Clemens Koller -
Jose V Beneyto -
Juergen Daubert -
Lucas Hazel -
Richard Pöttler -
Simone Rota -
Tilman Sauerbeck