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

Bug#634262: ITP: arpwatch-ng -- Ethernet/FDDI station activity monitor, based on arpwatch



Hi again,

[...]
> Because he has had three NMU's, his last upload was on 2004 and I have
> got no reply from him since I pinged him and Anibal about a month ago.
> I just don't want to step on his toes. It would be a takeover, and he
> just asked to be in the Uploaders field for arpwatch-ng.
> 

From http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/09/msg00037.html I'd deduce that
Peter asked to be in Uploaders for *arpwatch*, not necessarily -ng. But then you
might also have further information, going beyond that list post. Besides that,
`mia-query fuji` doesn't look too promising.

[...] (detailed info about patches)
> 
> Not only 64bits users will benefit from these changes. And yes, I do have
> hundreds of installs on 64bits that do segfault with vanilla arpwatch, so I can
> confirm it does.
> 
> In short, I don't care that much about how to fix this, but I want it fixed and
> without getting in arpwatch's maintainer's way.
> 

I do agree that getting this fixed is very important. But naive as I am, I'd
also like to see the following QA issues to be considered in the process:

- With arpwatch-ng with get a fresh package in the archive, but arpwatch itself
  will continue a shadowy existence. With fuji being apparently MIA, neither
  users nor the maintainer will take care of it. Bit rot.
- Please try to find a wording for the description that helps users to choose
  between arpwatch and arpwatch-ng. Something along the lines of "This version
  is a superior re-implementation of arpwatch." Basically also arpwatch should
  see an NMU that changes the description to "This version of arpwatch is
  deprecated. Please install arpwatch-ng instead."
- It would be nice if existing installations of arpwatch could benefit from
  arpwatch-ng entering the archive. This isn't necessarily the case with a new
  source package being uploaded in parallel to the existing one.

Please understand that I do highly appreciate your efforts, I'm only in pursuit
of the (in my own naive understanding) best possible solution for our users.

Thanks for all the work,
Michael


Attachment: pgpQ7v1S8zoD7.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: