Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > So Frederic, what do you thing should be done? Fixing this bug and making
> > > the
> > > tool usefull is probably not bad.
> > > Anyway, switching to iptraf-ng doesn't sound that bad as they have _this_
> > > bug
> > > fixed. I'm running the -ng package atm and can't complain.
> > > Do want some help with packaging of the -ng package or NMU for this bug?
> >
> > As noted the currently blocking issue is the lack of a release; you
> > could go and ask Nikola Pajkovsky <npajk...@redhat.com> about his
> > plans.
> There was a release of iptraf-ng v1.0.2 [0]. The diff between .2 and .3 is
> just the removal of some documentation. The .2 release has this bug fixed.
My problem is with 4434e2, "rename iptraf to iptraf-ng (binaries,
mans)" which is not in any release yet, and has deep consequences
on the packaging of iptraf-ng.
> > Alternatively iptraf-ng could be ignored (no changes since February)
> > and the relevant patches incorporated in the iptraf package. What do
> > you thinkg about this?
>
> I just pulled everything into git [1] to have a look on it. The diff of
> iptraf v3.0.0 vs v3.0.1 are just some header changes. This release is not even
> announced on the homepage [2]. Their mailing list isn't very active either.
> iptraf-ng continued after v3.0.0. Nikola collected various patches from other
> distros and applied them. He announced it the mailing list with no reaction.
> Based on that, I would switch over to iptraf-ng because the original upstream
> looks dead and the fork fixed atleast one bug which is bothering people.
But the fork only lived for one month :/
As I am now undecided on iptraf-ng, I uploaded 3.0.0-8, including the
strcpy fix for this bug.
Frederic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
