Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-20 Thread David Bristel
or completeness? Dave Bristel On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Robert Stone wrote: > Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 15:49:37 -0700 > From: Robert Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: David Bristel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Move pr

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-19 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 10:51:33PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 18, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >An alternative is wu-ftpd. It would be rather foolish to support wu-ftpd > >100%, however, it has almost the same status as sendmail - it is a very > You mean that it's like sendma

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-19 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Sep 18, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >An alternative is wu-ftpd. It would be rather foolish to support wu-ftpd >100%, however, it has almost the same status as sendmail - it is a very You mean that it's like sendmail, i.e. security bugs pops out every time somebody looks at the code?

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-18 Thread Robert Stone
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:52:24AM -0700, David Bristel wrote: > Or a new section for packages removed from main due to bugs, but possibly > still desired by some people? It's safer to have a clear message that > "Debian considers these packages to contain too many bugs for inclusion in > the main

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-18 Thread Steve Lamb
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 09:57:44AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > An alternative is wu-ftpd. It would be rather foolish to support wu-ftpd > 100%, however, it has almost the same status as sendmail - it is a very > well tested and greatly improved software, for years now. You're right, it has the

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-18 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:22:59PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > Anyway, which ftpd in unstable do you see as the package to promote as > the ftpd of choice in Debian? > > Just to see what our alternatives are. An alternative is wu-ftpd. It would be rather foolish to support wu-ftpd 100%, h

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-18 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > * "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hamish> I don't think policy says that contrib is a dumping ground for > Hamish> crap packages. Can you point out which part to me please? > > If you call proftpd crap

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-18 Thread Raul Miller
On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 11:22:59PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > Anyway, which ftpd in unstable do you see as the package to promote as > the ftpd of choice in Debian? Depending on what your needs are, perhaps roxen. -- Raul

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Martin Bialasinski
* "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joel> People on linux-security-audit *have* said that about proftpd, Joel> and that was said before the most recent security hole was Joel> discovered. Rather proving them right, wouldn't you say? Well, not really a prove in scientific way. I

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Joel Klecker
At 20:45 +0200 1999-09-17, Martin Bialasinski wrote: OK, a bug in cron has recently produced a root exploit. What a crappy software, it should be moved to contrib. There's no evidence that cron has another one just waiting to happen. People on linux-security-audit *have* said that about proftpd, an

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Johnie Ingram
"Chris" == Chris Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chris> And, also, arguably cron is a more important part of a Unix Chris> system than a specific FTP daemon. And I agree that proftpd should be moved to contrib in slink, if not removed entirely -- no one has time to backport the security-fix-o

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Chris Rutter
On 17 Sep 1999, Martin Bialasinski wrote: > OK, a bug in cron has recently produced a root exploit. What a crappy > software, it should be moved to contrib. Yes, but there aren't *hundreds* of bugs in cron, all giving security problems; it has been subject (presumably) to security review; bugs do

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Martin Bialasinski
* "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joel> At 16:53 +0200 1999-09-17, Martin Bialasinski wrote: >> If you call proftpd crap, how do you call dpkg? Joel> No bug in dpkg has ever resulted in a a remote root exploit. OK, a bug in cron has recently produced a root exploit. What a cr

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Joel Klecker
At 16:53 +0200 1999-09-17, Martin Bialasinski wrote: * "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hamish> I don't think policy says that contrib is a dumping ground for Hamish> crap packages. Can you point out which part to me please? If you call proftpd crap, how do you call dpkg? No bu

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Josip Rodin
PLEASE reply below the old text, cut unneeded quote, and wrap your lines at 76 characters! On Fri, Sep 17, 1999 at 07:52:24AM -0700, David Bristel wrote: > > > This package has been a major source of serious security bugs and > > > indicatiosn are that it will remain as such. Our Policy states t

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Martin Bialasinski
* "Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hamish> I don't think policy says that contrib is a dumping ground for Hamish> crap packages. Can you point out which part to me please? If you call proftpd crap, how do you call dpkg? Please, I am in no part convinced that anything has to

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread David Bristel
sip Rodin wrote: > Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:44:46 +0200 > From: Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Move proftpd to contrib > Resent-Date: 17 Sep 1999 14:45:46 - > Resent

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Josip Rodin
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 10:42:36PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > This package has been a major source of serious security bugs and > indicatiosn are that it will remain as such. Our Policy states that > packages that are not sufficiently free of bugs to meet our standards > should not be in main an

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 22:42:36 -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > This package has been a major source of serious security bugs and > indicatiosn are that it will remain as such. SuSE have indicated they're dropping it: http://linuxtoday.com/story.php3?sn=10124 . > Our Policy states that packages tha

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Ruud de Rooij
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 10:42:36PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > This package has been a major source of serious security bugs and > > indicatiosn are that it will remain as such. Our Policy states that > > packages that are not sufficiently free of b

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 10:42:36PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > This package has been a major source of serious security bugs and > indicatiosn are that it will remain as such. Our Policy states that > packages that are not sufficiently free of bugs to meet our standards > should not be in main an

Re: Move proftpd to contrib

1999-09-17 Thread Johnie Ingram
"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> whatever steps necessary to do that. We absolutely cannot John> release a distribution with such a bubbling security hole as John> this. True, but I suggest waiting until freeze time before deciding its worthiness. netgod