Control: tag -1 moreinfo Hi!
On Fri, 2023-12-29 at 20:03:33 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Package: inetutils > Severity: wishlist > I noticed that netkit-rsh is orphaned and there are even requests to > remove it: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041864 > > That is stalled because there are two reverse dependencies that > allegedly uses: pdsh and pvm. > > I was thinking that the inetutils package could provide the rsh-client > and rsh-server packages, allowing netkit-rsh to be removed from Debian. > Currently the Debian packaging of inetutils doesn't build rsh/rshd > though. > > What do you think? This crosses my mind some time ago, and started preparing the changes, but then stopped when I realized these clients and daemons would end up with no Kerberos 5 support (they seem to have Shishi support but the packaging was switched away from that, and rexec* has no Kerberos support whatsoever), which made me rather uncomfortable. See the following old branches which I've just rebased and pushed: https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/pkgs/inetutils.git/commit/?h=pu/rsh https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/pkgs/inetutils.git/log/?h=pu/rexec I realize that would be no worse than the current netkit implementations (AFAICT), but I'd rather not maintain these clients/servers if they do not even have an option for secure connections. > Some experiment would be needed to make sure pdsh/pvm (and their reverse > dependencies) still build and work. > > It would help to analyze any differences between netkit and inetutils > rsh and rshd too. Once the above is covered, then this would need to be done too, yes. :) Thanks, Guillem
