Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1203358

Bug#1074175: netkit-rwho: remove for trixie?

From	Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.devel
Subject	Bug#1074175: netkit-rwho: remove for trixie?
Date	2024-07-06 17:50 +0200
Message-ID	<IXfPH-fUp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <IWLHX-7NTU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ISPTP-5d1w-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <IWLHX-7NTU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ISPTP-5d1w-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <IWLHX-7NTU-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:24:18AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> First, I think we need to understand the rationale for doing anything
> about 'netkit-rwho': do we want to do something because 1) it is not
> maintained upstream? or 2) because it is an insecure design?, or 3)
> something else?

At least 1) and 2).

> [..]

> So, are our reason for doing anything about netkit-rwho really because
> netkit upstream is not maintained?

There is no upstream. Arch uses _us_ as their upstream.

The last release tarball is stamped in the year 2000.

> I haven't analyzed what rwho(d) implementations are out there.  I see
> NetBSD/FreeBSD has one still in -current, but OpenBSD removed it during
> 5.x.  Are people aware of any other implementations worth considering?

IMO we should follow OpenBSD's 2015 (or earlier) decision.

Chris

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1074175: netkit-rwho: remove for trixie? Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> - 2024-07-05 09:40 +0200
  Bug#1074175: netkit-rwho: remove for trixie? Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2024-07-06 17:50 +0200

csiph-web