Hi Simon! On Fri, 2022-07-08 at 20:40:01 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > > We'd need to send a mail to debian-devel, announcing the transition, > > to check whether there's any objection. I can prepare something during > > the weekend.
Which I did, and there didn't seem to be objections to the actual plan. > >> 2) Is it required for 1) that the netkit-telnet package is removed from > >> Debian? Maybe the package could live on and ship 'netkit-telnet' > >> instead of the 'telnet' package? Perhaps that package could continue to > >> live on in unstable, but never ship with a future release in favor of > >> inetutils-telnet. > > > > That's something I was wondering, after you adopted netkit-telnet. If > > you'd like to keep the netkit packages, then renaming the binary packages > > would be the way to go, yes. If so, then we have two options, either > > netkit keeps the telnet/telnetd packages and turns them into > > transitional dummy packages pointing at the inetutils ones, and then > > ships the real things in netkit- namespaced ones, or src:inetutils > > takes them over, which does not require going through NEW, but then > > the src:netkit-telnet might get garbage collected. But given that it > > would need to go through NEW anyway, that might be the quickest way to > > go about it. > > I'm open to anything here -- my idea with adopting netkit-telnet it was > to be able to control the transition. Sure. As per the plan on debian-devel, whenever you have some time, could you prepare the netkit-telnet update targeting experimental, which renames the binary packages to be prefixed with netkit-*? Then once these get ACCEPTED from NEW, we can coordinate the upload of netkit-telnet and inetutils into unstable. > I'm happy to co-maintain netkit-telnet with you on salsa, if you have > ideas how that package should evolve. Thanks for the offer, although I think I'd rather not maintain more abandoned upstream packages. :) > >> Similar thoughts applies to inetutils-telnetd vs netkit-telnetd too, but > >> I wanted to start with something simple so I chose inetutils-telnet. > >> Since telnet and telnetd is shipped from the same netkit-telnet source > >> package, it may that if 2) is involved above, something needs to happen > >> to inetutils-telnetd too, and then so be it. > > > > I'm fine with doing this step-wise or wholesale. If doing telnetd at > > the same time might look like blocking telnet, then we can start with > > just that one, but that would require going through NEW twice, which > > does not look ideal. > > > > Given the above open questions, I think I'm just going to update to > > the latest upstream now, and then we can check how to proceed in the > > coming days. > > It is easier to do one thing at a time, so if starting with only telnet > gets us going anywhere, I'm in favor of that. As you probably saw, after some thought, it seemed like doing both seemed fine. I'm going to be filing the bug reports mentioned in the mail to debian-devel, and prepare an inetutils branch for the switch during the weekend. Thanks, Guillem
