[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SRMs: xlockmore?

At 1178878964 time_t, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> That is of "important" severity. Work has been done to mitigate the effects of 
> that bug. Not resolved indeed, but worked around so it's not a critical issue 
> anymore: it will work for most systems and conflicts with environments that 
> may be insecure.
> There has been a message to that bug 4 months ago by the NMU'er saying why he 
> thinks more information is needed before this could still be considered as 
> RC. Currently only "it might crash with unknown pam modules" is the best 
> available information, and no-one has gotten around to adding any 
> clarification to that in the past 4 months.
> I don't know the policy on re-including packages, but bug #318123 should not 
> be the thing blocking it unless there's more concrete evidence regarding 
> which situation will expose users.

AFAIK, the policy says: no way.
On the other hand, xscreensaver is from my POV a (very?) useful[0] package
so I'd like to consider it. For that, it should first be a good thing to
have a etch package available and a debdiff from the last version which was in
etch and the new proposed one.

Martin, what do you think ?

[0] That my sounds subjective but I don't use it anyway.

Julien Danjou
.''`.  Debian Developer
: :' : http://julien.danjou.info
`. `'  http://people.debian.org/~acid
  `-   9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974  C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: