Philippe Wilson wrote:
Although the tftpd package is installed and configured to launch from
inetd, it does not Recommend that an inetd server be installed.
It looks to me like this has been resolved.
According to:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/tftpd
there is a dependency on netbase:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/netbase
which in turn depends on openbsd-inetd or inet-superserver, where
inet-superserver is a virtual package that is met by any of rlinetd,
inetutils-inetd, or openbsd-inetd. (It would seem the direct dependency
on openbsd-inetd is redundant, but that's a netbase problem.)
The problem with this solution is that atftpd:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/atftpd
depends on netkit-inetd:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/virtual/netkit-inetd
which is a virtual package satisfied by inetutils-inetd or openbsd-inetd.
Why do we have two virtual packages serving the same purpose? I'm
guessing one is being phased out and replaced by the other.
On an Ubuntu Feisty system where atftpd (0.7-11) was installed, which in
turn apparently installed inetutils-inetd (atftpd was the only package
requiring inetd), an attempt to install tftpd (0.17-15ubuntu1) wanted to
not only uninstall atftpd (as expected), but also replace
inetutils-inetd with openbsd-inetd. It seems things are being thrown off
by the two virtual inetd packages.
I'm not sure whether the change needs to be made on the atftpd side, or
with tftpd or netbase. I'm cc'ing the atftpd and netbase maintainers.
Let me know if you want me to open a new bug under either of those packages.
-Tom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
