On 03/22/2011 02:59 PM, Len Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:44:11PM -0400, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 15:13 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 10:58 -0800, tony mancill wrote: >>>> Second, I am proposing an an update to the atftp package for 2 important bugs >>>> that exist in the version in squeeze. >> [...] >>>> The second is #598474 [2]: multicast broken on kFreeBSD >>> >>> That bug is still marked as open, with a comment that it's only >>> partially fixed; do you know what's happening with getting it completely >>> resolved? >> >> Ping? > > I was wondering too. It missed 6.0.1. It's not that complicated a patch. > It's rather trivial in fact. I received email from Adam on Feb 13th regarding letting the NMU for #609813 age in unstable before fixing it in stable. Is it correct to assume that patch has aged enough? I haven't been involved with #598474; I'm adding Giovanni Mascellani to the cc: since he did an NMU for that bug. Also, I haven't heard anything from Ludovic in several months. Related to the discussion of atftpd, I spent some time looking at #613582, which appears to be a regression introduced by the IPv6 patch provided for #580473. This breaks the ftpd functionality for some clients (but not all) when binding the daemon to an IPv4 address. The only known work-around for the bug submitter has been to revert to the version in oldstable. The strategy I am considering for #613582 is to use the pre-#580473 code when binding to IPv4. I'm willing to coordinate uploads, but because don't have an adequate test environment for all of these issues. I'll also tag it RFH. Regards, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature