Re: Freeze exception for inetutils 2:1.8-1
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:45:53 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
Well, me too I guess, probably too late anyway.
> Are there any other distributions currently shipping 1.8?
The only other distributions I've found (after a cursory look)
shipping inetutils at all are ArchLinux and NixOS which do ship 1.8.
> On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 12:55 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > * ping new -w option (there's a wishlist bug report about this, needed to
> > make inetutils-ping option compatbile with iputils-ping, relied upon by
> This is the non option-parsing related sections of ping/ping.c (and much
> of the ping6.c changes) and the added function at the bottom of
> > other programs).
> > * Fixes an RC bug in inetd about IPv6 support.
> I assume that's #519316. Looking at the diff you provided, that appears
> to be trivially fixable in the current packages.
Yeah, sorry for not including a reference here. The change was not
complex after all, but it demanded a change in semantics on the protocol
values from inetd.conf, which upstream acked (patch been merged by them
too), so that's alright now.
> > I'm also willing to commit to fixing any possible regression
> > introduced by such upload within 10 days from bug filing.
> Were we to look at releasing with 1.8, I'd also prefer to have a version
> in unstable which had been bug free for a little while before migrating
I ended up uploading what I had in preparation in my git tree to
experimental some time ago, as I didn't want to end up having to upload
via t-p-u (which is supposed to be usually frowned upon). I also
included fixes for a segfault (#515070), tcpmux services and disabling
libopie-dev per Julien Cristau's request.
If you'd still be fine 1.8 going through unstable after whatever period
of time you deem necessary, I'll happily upload it there. Otherwise I'll
have to cherry-pick the important changes for 1.6.