El dom, 08-07-2012 a las 21:06 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > On 07/08/2012 08:57 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 23:29:35 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos<pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> El dom, 08-07-2012 a las 21:49 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: > >>> Il 08/07/2012 20:13, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn ha scritto: > >>>> Please report a removal bug for this, so any issues concerning > >>>> users of netkit-tftp can be tracked. > >>> Here it is: > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425362 > >>> > >>> And actually Robin K. who submitted the overflow bug I fixed, > >>> pointed out that there _are_ cases where hpa doesn't work but > >>> netkit does, so I've downgraded the removal to a simple masking for > >>> bad code. > >>> > >>> I guess we'll wait a bit more before removing this, in the mean time > >>> though I don't really feel happy with leaving it unmasked so it'll > >>> stay as it is. > >>> > >> If its upstream is completely dead, it has bad code and it has a > >> replacement, I would still go to treeclean it > > But if it provides the only means to netboot certain hardware, then you > > might think twice. > > > > > > jer > > > I have several ubiquity routerstations (the hardware in questions) and > I've asked Robin Kauffman to report the steps to reproduce in the bug. > I'll try to get to the bottom of why tftp-hpa doesn't work. > > --Tony >
I thought it has a replacement, if not, ok to keep
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
