[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: proposed update to atftpd package in stable

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: