Bug 323883 – [tracker] remove net-ftp/atftp

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2010-06-14 02:23:45 UTC]

- Open bugs: 260637, 321705, 322601
- Dead upstream
- No maintainer

* User-patch does exist for one of the bugs above

[Comment 1 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2011-02-22 05:14:08 UTC]

# Jeremy Olexa <[e-mail]> (22 Feb 2011)
# Masked for removal in 60 days by treecleaners
# - Open bugs: tracked in bug 323883
# - Dead upstream
# - No maintainer
net-ftp/atftp

[Comment 2 Stefan Behte (RETIRED) 2011-02-22 22:32:11 UTC]

What a pity, I used that package for quite a while. 
Do you have recommondations for replacements (net-ftp/netkit-tftp)?

The netboot-howto should be changed after punting it, as it does contain instructions how to set up atftp (as one of three possible choices).

[Comment 3 Jesse Adelman 2011-02-23 00:50:57 UTC]

I use this for uploading firmware to various phones and other devices when I'm in the field. The other tftp packages in Portage appear to be mostly servers, or for specific hardware (net-ftp/linksys-tftp).

[Comment 4 Arnaud Launay 2011-02-23 09:12:04 UTC]

I agree. It was highly configurable but very simple, I use it all the time to push firmware to ciscos and such...  i don't see any easy replacement.

[Comment 5 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2011-02-23 09:18:17 UTC]

(In reply to comment #0)
> * User-patch does exist for one of the bugs above

Actually, all of the bugs have proposed patches... I will try to take a look at this this week.

[Comment 6 Timofey Negrebetsky 2011-02-24 17:36:50 UTC]

Created attachment 263699 [details, diff]
atftp-0.7-illreply.patch

A patch from bug #260637

[Comment 7 Timofey Negrebetsky 2011-02-24 17:40:19 UTC]

Created attachment 263701 [details]
atftp-0.7-r2.ebuild

Also needs patches from bugs #321705 and #322601

[Comment 8 rafnov 2011-02-26 14:12:06 UTC]

Do not remove it from tree, please. This application saved my router several times after few unsuccesfull flashes. If you can advise an equivalent, please do it, but if there is no one, that app can save a lot of time and money.

[Comment 9 Richard Scott 2011-02-27 14:46:16 UTC]

This is an alternative:

net-ftp/tftp-hpa

I seem to remember tho, that it wouldn't send out files greater than about 90MB last time I used it.... it made PXE booting impossible! :-(

[Comment 10 Michał 'Khorne' Rzechonek 2011-03-02 09:57:48 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> # - Dead upstream

I've created https://sourceforge.net/projects/atftp/ and I'm going to start the maintenance effort.

I'll post an update when the code is imported and patched, possibly including an ebuild.

[Comment 11 Andreis Vinogradovs ( slepnoga ) 2011-03-11 08:33:58 UTC]

Do not remove it from tree, please. 
I use this package to build the RIS (remote installation server) server for PXE installation of older version ( 5.x) windows (r).
Мaybe it just leave a masked state?

[Comment 12 Richard Scott 2011-03-11 08:56:06 UTC]

(In reply to comment #9)
>... it made PXE booting impossible! :-(

I've just tried net-ftp/tftp-hpa again and it works for PXE booting! :-)
I'd even go as far to say it seems a bit quicker too!

Rich

[Comment 13 Peter Volkov (RETIRED) 2011-03-24 10:12:42 UTC]

Tobias, if you'll fail to find time, just ping me here or by e-mail. I'll have time next week. This package should live! :)

[Comment 14 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2011-03-26 09:00:38 UTC]

I've tried the patches from the other bugs (the spaced filename patch and the one for block overflows). The test suite still passes and it seems to work ok. I'll deploy it here and see how well it works in the next few days. 

I'll commit the patches and ebuild to use it (-r2) to the tree but keep it masked. Whoever is interested is invited to try it and report an bugs and add them as blockers to this one.

[Comment 15 Martin Dummer 2011-03-26 12:17:39 UTC]

(In reply to comment #14)
> I've tried the patches from the other bugs (the spaced filename patch and the
> one for block overflows). The test suite still passes and it seems to work ok.
> I'll deploy it here and see how well it works in the next few days. 
> 
> I'll commit the patches and ebuild to use it (-r2) to the tree but keep it
> masked. Whoever is interested is invited to try it and report an bugs and add
> them as blockers to this one.

Yes, not bad. 
But - what about checking out the new project home? 
http://atftp.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=atftp/atftp;a=summary

We merged some of the patches floating around.
The filename patch is already merged.
With the blocknumber wrap patch I'm not sure if it should be merged as-is because its not described in one of the RFC's and the patch is only for the client - the server does not behave well, too.

[Comment 16 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 09:13:13 UTC]

I've unmasked atftp-0.7-r2 and added myself as a maintainer.

Please test thoroughly.

@Michał: Glad to see upstream might come back to life.

[Comment 17 Ulrich Müller 2011-04-06 05:22:53 UTC]

(In reply to comment #16)
> I've unmasked atftp-0.7-r2 and added myself as a maintainer.

I've noticed that you've re-added the old-style virtual, that we had just removed in bug 359125. Is this on purpose?

[Comment 18 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2011-04-09 13:34:13 UTC]

(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I've unmasked atftp-0.7-r2 and added myself as a maintainer.
> 
> I've noticed that you've re-added the old-style virtual, that we had just
> removed in bug 359125. Is this on purpose?

My bad, I had somehow assumed it was part of atftp's earlier masking for removal.

Fixed.