17772 2003-03-18 16:00 0000 libnet 1.0.2a is deprecated 2003-11-28 08:41:19 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Library unspecified All Linux RESOLVED FIXED http://www.packetfactory.net/libnet/ P2 normal --- 1 tux@tuxslare.org vapier@gentoo.org carlo@gentoo.org dma@dmatech.org h3y@esaurito.net hillster@gentoo.org mholzer@gentoo.org rac@gentoo.org seemant@gentoo.org tux@tuxslare.org 2003-03-18 16:00:29 0000 from http://www.packetfactory.net/libnet/ : Deprecated Tree (unsupported) Latest Version: 1.0.2a The SecurityFocus article on libnet 1.0.x written by Mike Schiffman. All of the libnet code may be found here. tux@tuxslare.org 2003-03-18 16:05:51 0000 I still got it from the emerge libnet, shouldn't it be removed? (I know that the latest version is available), or is it kept because of compability issues? seemant@gentoo.org 2003-03-18 19:39:14 0000 I believe compatibility issues are at play here, but I'll investigate. Actually, marty can you? humillo@hotmail.com 2003-03-25 14:18:03 0000 Its no longer possible to build version 1.0.2a of this package because the source is not mirrored anywhere. humillo@hotmail.com 2003-03-25 14:48:58 0000 Changing SRC_URI to the following makes it work again: SRC_URI="http://www.packetfactory.net/${PN}/dist/deprecated/${PN}-${PV}.tar.gz" wmertens@gentoo.org 2003-03-27 01:03:38 0000 I can tell you that most apps use libnet 1.0.x, and they changed the api severely for 1.1.x. I once tried porting something to using libnet 1.1, but it was more trouble than it was worth, since it already worked :) So don't go removing the ebuild! seemant@gentoo.org 2003-04-14 01:17:27 0000 Robert, there's libnet in net-libs and dev-perl -- do we need to rename the dev-perl one? If so, let me know, so it can be added to the list of package moves, when stable portage is upgraded to know about moves. rac@gentoo.org 2003-04-14 11:22:41 0000 Seemant, the libnet in net-libs and the libnet in dev-perl are two completely different animals. I have always considered "emerge package" as shorthand for "emerge category/package" to be simply a convenience that could not necessarily be relied upon in cases such as this, so I would just leave it. If you want to move it, however, it will probably need a new way of finding its SRC_URI. vapier@gentoo.org 2003-08-17 12:27:30 0000 ok, someone had already SLOT-ed libnet 1.0.x and 1.1.x so i touched up the SLOT in 1.1.x and unmasked it ... vapier@gentoo.org 2003-08-17 12:29:50 0000 actually ill leave this open as a reminder ... i want to switch the roles of libnet-1.0.x and libnet-1.1.x ... that is, right now 1.0.x is sitting in /usr/lib/libnet.a, /usr/include/libnet/, and /usr/bin/libnet-config while 1.1.x has '1.1' suffixes on all of these ... i'll be switching them such that 1.0.x has the suffixes and 1.1.x is in the standard locations ... fortunatly libnet is a static library and this change wont break any existing installs ;) vapier@gentoo.org 2003-08-20 18:09:39 0000 *** Bug 27022 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** vapier@gentoo.org 2003-08-20 21:22:13 0000 ok, new libnet/libnids is now in portage ... ill leave this open for a little while longer so as to help tracking of other packages ... libnet-1.0.2a-r3: SLOT=1.0 /usr/lib/libnet-1.0.a /usr/include/libnet/libnet-1.0-<header name>.h /usr/include/libnet-1.0.h /usr/man/man3/libnet-1.0.3 /usr/bin/libnet-1.0-config libnet-1.1.0-r3: SLOT=1.1 /usr/lib/libnet.a /usr/include/libnet/libnet-<header name>.h /usr/include/libnet.h /usr/share/man/man3/libnet.3 /usr/bin/libnet-config carlo@gentoo.org 2003-11-08 17:28:37 0000 libnet 1.0.2a-r2 and 1.1.0-r3 still overwrite each others header files!? vapier@gentoo.org 2003-11-09 09:50:42 0000 -r2 of both versions == stable -r3 of both versions == unstable either use both stable or both unstable otherwise it's your bug :p carlo@gentoo.org 2003-11-09 15:40:36 0000 hm, "nice": libnet-1.1.0-r3 = x86 libnet-1.0.2a-r3 ~x86, but -r2 = x86 so stable/unstable is mixed for me thanks for clearifying this SpanKY - an einfo line wouldn't harm imho vapier@gentoo.org 2003-11-09 17:55:21 0000 thats interesting ... looks like someone marked it stable without telling me ... *looks at hillster* pushing this SLOT-ed stuff to stable even though portage doesnt handle it quite right :p gentoo@glazer.ca 2003-11-28 08:41:19 0000 Please take a look at bug # 34632