I prepared a package for a NMU and created sponsorship request #683150. Then Bart Martens and me discussed if my fix (a preinst script for libcap-bin cleanly removing the pam module) is appropriate. The problem is that squeeze users with libcap-bin will lose the pam module when upgrading. This could be fixed by libcap-bin depending on libpam-cap.
Am 02.08.2012 07:23, schrieb Bart Martens: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Hansen wrote: >> Should I upload another package with the dependency instead of the >> preinst script and you sponsor it? > > To be honest, I'm not sure what would be the best solution for bug 673770. > The > popcon is pretty high. We don't want to make upgrading users unhappy. But we > don't want to violate policy by adding a "Depends" when the package doesn't > really need it. Maybe a transitional package could be the solution. Also the > reverse dependencies need to be looked at : do they need libpam-cap ? I would > feel more comfortable if Torsten Werner would decide on what to do. I'm not > familiar enough with all relevant details to be sponsoring an NMU for this > bug. > Anyhow it is good that you seem to care about fixing release critical bugs and > that you are considering to NMU this package. Appreciated. > > Regards, > > Bart Martens > Ok, we really should have had that whole discussion in the bug report. It's a pity that noone answers, but we can't blame Torsten Werner, because he didn't cause the breakage. Maybe he want's to keep the package without multiarch that is currently in wheezy. Would you comment on that Torsten? Best regards, Tobias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
