SRMs: xlockmore?

Vincent McIntyre

unread,

May 10, 2007, 11:30:05 PM5/10/07

to

Hi,

is it possible to have xlockmore included in the point release?
It had an RC bug that kept it out of etch but that seems to have
been resolved some months ago.

Thanks
Vince

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

Alexander Wirt

unread,

May 11, 2007, 1:30:08 AM5/11/07

to

Vincent McIntyre schrieb am Freitag, den 11. Mai 2007:

>
> Hi,
>
> is it possible to have xlockmore included in the point release?
> It had an RC bug that kept it out of etch but that seems to have
> been resolved some months ago.

#318123 isn't resolved.

Alex

Thijs Kinkhorst

unread,

May 11, 2007, 6:40:09 AM5/11/07

to

On Friday 11 May 2007 07:20, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Vincent McIntyre schrieb am Freitag, den 11. Mai 2007:
> > is it possible to have xlockmore included in the point release?
> > It had an RC bug that kept it out of etch but that seems to have
> > been resolved some months ago.
>
> #318123 isn't resolved.

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.

Thijs

Julien Danjou

unread,

May 11, 2007, 8:40:07 AM5/11/07

to

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

signature.asc

Martin Zobel-Helas

unread,

May 11, 2007, 9:00:15 AM5/11/07

to

Hi,

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.

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