Package Details: netkit-rwho-debian 0.17-10

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/netkit-rwho-debian.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: netkit-rwho-debian
Description: Remote who client and server (with Debian patches)
Upstream URL: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/netkit-rwho
Licenses: BSD-4-Clause-UC
Submitter: mortzu
Maintainer: chowbok
Last Packager: chowbok
Votes: 7
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2009-01-20 12:42 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-07-15 02:02 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

chowbok commented on 2024-05-26 11:27 (UTC)

Okay, done.

micwoj92 commented on 2024-05-26 10:48 (UTC)

If we go by this route, then any package could remove glibc/systemd from depends because it can be safely assumed (until it isn't). Namcap can give suggestion what can be done about packaging to improve it.

netkit-rwho-debian W: ELF file ('usr/bin/ruptime') lacks FULL RELRO, check LDFLAGS.
netkit-rwho-debian W: ELF file ('usr/bin/rwho') lacks FULL RELRO, check LDFLAGS.
netkit-rwho-debian W: ELF file ('usr/bin/rwhod') lacks FULL RELRO, check LDFLAGS.
netkit-rwho-debian W: Directory (var/spool/rwho) is empty
netkit-rwho-debian E: BSD is not a valid SPDX license identifier. See https://spdx.org/licenses/ for valid identifiers, or prefix the identifier with 'LicenseRef-', if it is custom.
netkit-rwho-debian E: Dependency glibc detected and not included (libraries ['usr/lib/libc.so.6'] needed in files ['usr/bin/rwho', 'usr/bin/rwhod', 'usr/bin/ruptime'])
netkit-rwho-debian E: Dependency bash detected and not included (programs ['bash'] needed in scripts ['usr/share/netkit-rwho-debian/rwhod-purge.cron'])

chowbok commented on 2024-05-26 10:41 (UTC)

Why? glibc and systemd can be safely assumed to be on the system, sh is unnecessary. I guess I could re-add cron as an optional dependency, but it seems a little silly when you can just use the systemd timer.

micwoj92 commented on 2024-05-26 10:27 (UTC)

Please readd dependencies.

grahamedgecombe commented on 2018-05-31 17:47 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added arm and aarch64 to the arch array. I don't have any ARM hardware so I'll just trust that it works!

chowbok commented on 2018-05-31 01:59 (UTC)

Argh, sorry, it's "aarch64", not "aarm64".

chowbok commented on 2018-05-31 01:53 (UTC)

Answering my own question: no, it does not. So Graham, can you also add "aarm64" when you get a chance? Probably doesn't need a version bump, since anyone who already has it doesn't need it.

Thanks, and sorry to be a pest.

chowbok commented on 2018-05-31 01:40 (UTC)

Will "arm" also cover "aarm64"?

ddouglass commented on 2018-05-15 15:46 (UTC)

compiles and runs fine on armv5tel. I think you can safely replace 'armv6h' and 'armv7h' with simply 'arm'

chowbok commented on 2018-02-27 04:34 (UTC)

Thanks!

1 2 Next › Last »