Bug#843906: marked as done (Please remove tftpd in favour of tftpd-hpa)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:51:50 +0000
with message-id <E1odaHm-00B2dk-QY@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#843906: fixed in netkit-tftp 0.17-25
has caused the Debian Bug report #843906,
regarding Please remove tftpd in favour of tftpd-hpa
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
843906: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=843906
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: tftpd
Version: 0.17-18
AFAICT netkit's tftpd is inferior to tftpd-hpa in every respect:
https://wiki.debian.org/Tftp
netkit-tftpd is not capable of booting some modern computers. For
example, I have a Softiron ARM64 server with UEFI firmware which
require support for the file size option.
aftpd and dnsmasq seem like it still has good reasons to exist.
Unlike netkit-tftp they are at least not a problem if people happen to
get them through not knowing better.
I suggest that we should:
* Remove the netkit-tftp package.
* Have tftpd-hpa Provide tftpd.
If this is not a good idea then we should probably rename the
netkit-tftp binary package `tftpd' and replace it with a suitable
transitional package.
What do you think ?
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: netkit-tftp
Source-Version: 0.17-25
Done: Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org>
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
netkit-tftp, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 843906@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org> (supplier of updated netkit-tftp package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:08:35 +0200
Source: netkit-tftp
Architecture: source
Version: 0.17-25
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
Changed-By: Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org>
Closes: 843906
Changes:
netkit-tftp (0.17-25) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* QA upload.
* Drop tftpd. (Closes: #843906)
Checksums-Sha1:
b84ec5cffc9a73f8fb2bf4433b0a2ec7a8b5294c 1525 netkit-tftp_0.17-25.dsc
c643d9812e6bd86d77bb554f593e2e4cd25ead5e 4048 netkit-tftp_0.17-25.debian.tar.xz
642212ced0a2f3a3a8ee1877c7f3beabcb6551e7 5620 netkit-tftp_0.17-25_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
9236a7f37c66b39771c3e612f0ac1ac8a0e583a49ddb1d31f9f7be6043db0ddb 1525 netkit-tftp_0.17-25.dsc
197bc2ead224646b97b4cf06682b9fac8a0492f89dd533a7a26e1672beeb8684 4048 netkit-tftp_0.17-25.debian.tar.xz
d8dd2af4b526d3eaf401125983d11f748ce37ab078a4acb11a1a434cc5260d29 5620 netkit-tftp_0.17-25_source.buildinfo
Files:
be9879cf2162521cd7e6ed79de10f3f0 1525 net optional netkit-tftp_0.17-25.dsc
c8a5ee48409adbd659988be0a495178d 4048 net optional netkit-tftp_0.17-25.debian.tar.xz
2542afff3a59488da91e85a81d3c1092 5620 net optional netkit-tftp_0.17-25_source.buildinfo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KXiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
Reply to: