From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jonatan Schlag <jonatan.schlag@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: gnu-netcat
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:24:42 +0100
Message-ID: <79DA000B-4D62-4230-B1DB-EB90F454EB9D@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <3896B39D-1166-4A2F-B826-646009D518AB@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2678959547666058672=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============2678959547666058672==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi *,

In my memories, it was the other way around.  We have and ncat for libvirtd b=
ecause gnu-netcat doesn=E2=80=99t support sockets. So I am fine with dropping=
 this.=20

Jonatan=20

> Am 27.11.2022 um 13:10 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFHello Adolf,
>=20
> If I remember this correctly, we have gnu-netcat because libvirtd only work=
s with that one.
>=20
> Jonatan might now. I copied him in the hope he will see this email.
>=20
> -Michael
>=20
>> On 24 Nov 2022, at 17:48, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> Dear All,
>>=20
>> IPFire has nmap/ncat as an addon which is under ongoing development.
>>=20
>> I have noticed that we also have gnu-netcat as an addon, which was last up=
dated in 2004.
>>=20
>> Do we need to have gnu-netcat from 2004 when we have nmap/ncat.
>>=20
>>=20
>> If the decision is that we don't need it then I would raise a patch to rem=
ove it from IPFire.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>> Adolf.
>>=20
>>=20
>=20

--===============2678959547666058672==--