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. Cheers, -- 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