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

Re: SRMs: xlockmore?


On Fri May 11, 2007 at 14:39:51 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> 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 ?

I think we will/should not add/include packages, which weren't there in
4.0r0.  Sorry.

[root@debian /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life

Reply to: