Re: IMPORTANT: Unstable fixes not in frozen
On 30 Apr 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
> > If you're going to do that, could you also make the shadow-aware xdm be the
> > default? Since bo is gonna be shadow-aware (and since that's what all other
> > apps have done), it seems like the right thing to do.
> If there's an outstanding bug report about it, I'll try, but if Friday
> is the deadline there may not be enough time to build and test
> everything (this is my first maintainer-build of the debian X
> packages, though I've built them before for development, and I don't
> want to introduce any but the most *obvious* changes this close to a
> release; if the xrdb fix wasn't both *really* obvious [hard to
> *pinpoint*, I grant that, and appreciate the work of others who found
> it... though electric fence probably catches it; anyway, the change is
> correct by inspection...] and actually generating user complaints, I
> wouldn't have put it in just now.)
I'm not really sure (I haven't switched to shadow yet) but AFAIK the
current xdm works with plain _and_ shadow passwds, or did I miss
> It does overall seem like the right thing to do, though. I'll note,
> though, that the word "shadow" does not appear in the policy or
> programmers guides -- could someone look into that and fix it?
Things like this doesn't really fit in the Policy Manual in its current
form. However, I'm working on restructuring that manual and, yes, this
should be included somewhere.
Thanks for the hint,
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian is looking firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .