[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug-inetutils] Status of next release (?)

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: [bug-inetutils] Status of next release (?)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:18:23 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Hi.  I just finished reading through all messages to bug-inetutils on
Gmane (since 2002 or so).  Here's a summary of what I found.  Based on
reading bug-inetutils, I think we can make a release of InetUtils
during this week.

However, I have not yet reviewed all changes in CVS since the last
version.  Doing that is complicated by the fact that there is no CVS
tags for the last release.  In fact, there doesn't seem to be any tags
for any release since 1.4.0. [1]

First, some Debian bug reports with specific patches, which I believe
all should be applied before the release:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=287552  #287552
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=287560  #287560
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=287567  #287567

There are at least two sets of patches for IPv6 support.  I did not
review the patches, because they were large, but as far as I could
tell, neither had been applied (at least verbatim).  Unless someone
know more about this, I don't think it should go in now.  Perhaps they
are already used in Debian's InetUtils package, in which case they
might be stable enough to add.



There is also the SRV support for telnet discussed in:


The patch allegedly doesn't apply to current CVS, so it cannot be
applied.  I'm currently working on a GNULIB module for SRV that could
be used by InetUtils eventually, instead of depending on RULI.  If the
original submitter did not want to work further on this, I guess we'll
have to wait for someone else who can update the patch for current
CVS.  Perhaps it then should use the SRV support in gnulib, to keep
things small and efficient.

Finally, we have our Kerberos 5 patch for telnet(d) and rsh(d) and the
TLS work for FTP.  That's the reason i did all this work.  I will file
a separate patch for the Kerberos 5 work.  I need to investigate
whether Nikos' assignment cover all the FTP changes, or whether Peter
Runestig would also have to sign papers.  If it works out, I'll file a
separate bug for the FTP/TLS patch.


[1] With CVS access, I could reconstruct the tags, by comparing the
released tar files.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]