On Fri, Dec 5, 2025, 17:06 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: James Addison > > Even so: does this mean that we should be careful about disabling > > fcf-protection=branch on a broader/default basis? > > The question was entirely only about bookworm. In bookworm, none of > the fcf-protection bits are enabled by default. It was solely active > in sudo because upstream enabled it. > > I believe the question of disabling fcf-protection is not relevant for > any other bookworm package. The "unstable" part of that question > should be discussed on -devel, not in this bug. > > Christoph >
Acknowledged - thanks, Christoph. >
