Bug#983407: Pam: Multiple issues Affecting Upgrades
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> writes:
Paul> On 23-02-2021 19:17, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> This is just a FYI, opened as a bug because you've expressed a
Paul> If it's in time to migrate before March 12, there's nothing to
Paul> unblock. We're still only in soft freeze and pam is not on
Paul> our build-essentials list.
Ah, I thought essential as well as build-essential was frozen.
Pam is not technically essential but is pre-depends for several
essentials.
>> or I may want to ask for additional review before I'm ready to
>> recommend inclusion in testing.
Paul> Be aware that we're no PAM experts. At least, I have no clue.
Nod, I was thinking of asking more broadly than debian-release if only
because you are busy.
Review will mostly be on the maintainer script and debconf side; the pam
specific bits are not interesting.
>> * 982530: removal of pam_tally
Paul> Severity currently is "normal", sounds like that not correct?
Paul> At least it means it's not on our radar.
Definitely wrong.
Wasn't sure whether it should be serious or grave.
Admittedly leaving it as normal seems wrong.
I have upgraded to serious.
>> Plan is to detect the situation and scream in the preinst. Down
>> side is that means new strings that need translation (debconf
>> templates)
Paul> And how about mentioning this in the release notes?
Will do that too.
>> * 982295: pam won't deal with upgrades without an init script
Paul> "Only" severity important, again, do you think that is
Paul> correct?
Possibly. This one is important or serious.
It's serious if there's some package that breaks badly that has actually
removed its init script.
I haven't dug around to prove that it's RC, and felt uncomfortable
upgrading a bug in Steve's package (even though I'm an uploader) without
proof.
Reply to: