Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > Hi! > > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 02:20:21 +0200, Bastian Germann wrote: >> Source: inetutils >> Version: 2:2.3-5 >> Severity: wishlist >> Control: block 1018949 by -1 > >> To help with #1018949 (netkit-telnet: Drop in favour of netkit-telnet-ssl), >> please suggest to install telnet[d]-ssl in the telnet[d] descriptions >> instead of the lately introduced packages. >> >> This can prevent introducing the new netkit-telnet[d] packages in bookworm. >> They are unnecessary and duplicate code in the archive. > > I agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to hear what Simon has to say > about this, and whether the packages are going to stay or not. > >> I have included a patch that applies on the current main branch. > > Thanks! Depending on what Simon says, I'd either merge this, or amend > it to add the references in addition to the current ones. > > I also think the blocking is backwards, as this is not my decision to > make, only to sync the documentation with reality, on what might > happen on the netkit-telnet side. :)
I don't have any strong opinion on this. Some people suggested earlier that netkit-telnet should be removed, and even to drop it before buster, and I think it was mostly me seeing value in shipping netkit-telnet in bookworm to get a smooth transition. However I don't want to stand in the way if Bastian wants to drive removal. If we drop netkit-telnet now, people will have time to test and react and we have the option to reconsider if there is something substantial. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
