DevHeads.net

Package with no upstream (ftp)

Hello all,

what should I do with the spec file of a package (ftp) with no upstream and no upstream source?
I mean the URL and Source0 lines. Should I just let them there, put a note in a comment or
just remove them?

I haven't found anything about such case in the guidelines.

Thanks,

Comments

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Bill Nottingham at 07/18/2012 - 10:15

Jan Synacek (<a href="mailto: ... at redhat dot com"> ... at redhat dot com</a>) said:
Did the netkit upstream finally give up the ghost entirely? If so, it likely
affects more packages than just ftp.

Bill

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Jan Synacek at 07/19/2012 - 01:15

On 07/18/2012 04:15 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
[1] seems to be dead. And I haven't found any other places with the source,
apart from some Slackware mirrors.

What other packages can be affected?

[1] <a href="ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit" title="ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit">ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit</a>

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Paul Black at 07/19/2012 - 03:42

On 19 July 2012 06:15, Jan Synacek < ... at redhat dot com>wrote:

Does <a href="ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/Networking/netkit" title="ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/Networking/netkit">ftp://ftp.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/Networking/netkit</a> have what you want?

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Jan Synacek at 07/19/2012 - 03:54

On 07/19/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Black wrote:
AHA! Yes, it does.

Hmm, I wonder where the mangled url I used came from. It's been written like
that in the spec since forever..

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Colin Walters at 07/18/2012 - 04:43

On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 10:19 +0200, Jan Synacek wrote:
Upload it to fedorahosted, gitorious, github, or whatever. Even if
you're the only person with access initially, it's still useful as a
possible code sharing mechanism with other distributions, etc. And
who knows, maybe someone will come along and submit patches.

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Jan Synacek at 07/18/2012 - 05:10

On 07/18/2012 10:43 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
Sounds reasonable. Thank you.

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By David Cantrell at 07/18/2012 - 10:55

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:10:20AM +0200, Jan Synacek wrote:
Or forget the netkit source. I'd like to see ftp(1) replaced with the
NetBSD ftp client:

<a href="ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/tnftp/" title="ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/tnftp/">ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/tnftp/</a>

Used to be called lukemftp a long time ago. Much nicer than netkit ftp
but still simple and works like people expect the BSD ftp(1) command to
work.

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Pete Zaitcev at 07/18/2012 - 12:46

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:55:55 -0400

But we already have a yet nicer FTP client, lftp. Really not point in
tinkering with the plain FTP this way, it seems to me.

-- Pete

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Chris Adams at 07/18/2012 - 14:05

Once upon a time, Pete Zaitcev < ... at redhat dot com> said:
Yeah, keep plain-old "ftp" as simple as possible. lftp is great, but it
has more dependencies, and I have had occasion when I needed to fall
back to the old standby.

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By David Cantrell at 07/18/2012 - 14:21

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 01:05:06PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I do like lftp, but I feel the simple ftp(1) client serves a different need.

dcantrel@box ~$ ldd /usr/local/bin/tnftp
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff94dff000)
libtinfo.so.5 => /lib64/libtinfo.so.5 (0x0000003a7c200000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003a6e600000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003a6e200000)

dcantrel@box ~$ ldd /usr/bin/ftp
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff70bff000)
libreadline.so.6 => /lib64/libreadline.so.6 (0x0000003a6fe00000)
libncurses.so.5 => /lib64/libncurses.so.5 (0x0000003a78e00000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003a6e600000)
libtinfo.so.5 => /lib64/libtinfo.so.5 (0x0000003a7c200000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003a6f200000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003a6e200000)

dcantrel@box ~$ ldd /usr/bin/lftp
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff177ff000)
liblftp-jobs.so.0 => /usr/lib64/liblftp-jobs.so.0 (0x0000003a6fa00000)
liblftp-tasks.so.0 => /usr/lib64/liblftp-tasks.so.0 (0x0000003a6ea00000)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x0000003a6f600000)
libreadline.so.6 => /lib64/libreadline.so.6 (0x0000003a6fe00000)
libutil.so.1 => /lib64/libutil.so.1 (0x0000003a79600000)
libtinfo.so.5 => /lib64/libtinfo.so.5 (0x0000003a7c200000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003a6f200000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003a6e600000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0000003a78e00000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003a6e200000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x0000003a6ee00000)

tnftp, since it's from NetBSD, uses libedit for line editing. The source
includes it or you can link it with the libedit we already have. Or you
can disable the functionality. I do dislike having two line editing
libraries, but whatever. My locally installed tnftp has line editing via
the provided libedit in the tnftp source.

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By Ben Boeckel at 07/20/2012 - 11:15

Hash: SHA512

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 18:21:32 GMT, David Cantrell wrote:
libreadline being full-fledged GPLv3+ makes it hard to justify in BSD
projects. For such a commonly used library, it being GPL rather than
LGPL makes little sense to me, but that's the way it is.

- -- Ben

Re: Package with no upstream (ftp)

By David Cantrell at 07/20/2012 - 12:56

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:15:54PM +0000, Ben Boeckel wrote:
I understand the reason, but it's less of a technical reason and more just
a licensing annoyance. That's all I wanted to point out.