Bastian Germann <b...@debian.org> writes: > Am 09.09.22 um 12:57 schrieb Simon Josefsson: >>> Just to be clear on this: There is one thing that you need to do to >>> enable clear-text use of in.telnetd: >>> It needs the command line argument -z nossl. This should be stated in >>> the telnetd package's description on the last >>> sentence: If you want to keep using the netkit implementation, then >>> install telnetd-ssl instead and run in.telnetd with >>> the argument -z nossl for the clear-text protocol. >> Ah right. That's the kind of differences between netkit-telnet and >> netkit-telnet-ssl I was worried about, and having confidence there >> aren't more of them seems challenging. Help wanted here, if you want >> to drive some particular change, feel free to do it! > > As the automatic package transition is from the netkit packages to inetutils, > it is okay to have an additional flag to set when people decide to continue > using telnetd-ssl. I am confident that you do not need any other changes to > run telnet or telnetd compatibly. > > I have asked for the suggested description change in #1020542. > When that is done, I would kindly ask you to reassign this bug as a RM bug or > allow me to do that for you. It would be nice of you to adopt the > netkit-telnet-ssl package instead.
No objections from me if you want to RM netkit-telnet, although I have a hard time seeing (or testing) how upgrades will work. I feel less confident that netkit-telnet-ssl can behave in all ways that netkit-telnet does today, without introducing new behaviour that cause other problems. I also don't have the cycles to read and think about the diff between the packages. So I don't think I'm the best maintainer for netkit-telnet-ssl. It would be nice if all netkit-telnet bug reports were transferred to netkit-telnet-ssl, if netkit-telnet is removed, to preserve history and allow future fixes to earlier problems. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
