Re: GNOME 2.2 summary 22/06/2003
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GNOME 2.2 summary 22/06/2003
- From: Johannes Rohr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:49:06 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <1vEB.7Th.firstname.lastname@example.org> (Christian Marillat's message of "Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:20:09 +0200")
- References: <email@example.com> <1vlp.7Bm.firstname.lastname@example.org> <1vEB.7Th.email@example.com>
Christian Marillat <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Johannes Rohr <email@example.com> writes:
>> control-center would break xscreensaver in sarge. And xscreensaver has
>> 3 grave bugs, #171772, #180063, #195740.
> Very funny that excuses pages doesn't display that.
>> At least #180063 is a real security hole that probably takes a fair
>> amount of hacking to get fixed.
> Then I'll remove the xscreensaver-gnome suggests. I don't see a good
> reason to keep that.
That won't really make a difference, since control-center 2.2.x
*breaks* the version of xscreensaver-gnome in sarge.
Maintainer: Karl Ramm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Replaces: xscreensaver (<< 3.33-4)
Depends: [...], libcapplet0 (>= 1:22.214.171.124-6)[...]
jr@rudi:~$ apt-cache show libcapplet0
Maintainer: Christian Marillat <email@example.com>
control-center 2.2.x is blocked because it does not provide libcapplet0
> Another advice ?
Well, if the RC bugs in xscreensaver apply to 4.0.5 and 4.0.10
equally, which I suspect, than couldn't those bugs be tagged
"sarge,sid"? Would this tell the testing scripts to pass through the
newer version as both of them are equally buggy?