On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 08:01:37PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:57:22 -0600, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> >The issue is that, in order to reliably ensure that a user (such as the
> >admin) is not locked out by xscreensaver or xlockmore in the middle of an
> >upgrade,
> The relea
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:57:22 -0600, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>The issue is that, in order to reliably ensure that a user (such as the
>admin) is not locked out by xscreensaver or xlockmore in the middle of an
>upgrade,
The release notes strongly suggest not doing the upgrade from within
an X session
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Therefore I think it's neither necessary nor appropriate for libpam-modules
> to avoid a pre-dependency on debconf.
>
> Is it ok to make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
> for lenny?
I think so. We already have many predepende
]] Steve Langasek
(Not wearing any particular hat here)
[...]
| Is it ok to make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
| for lenny?
Yes, I think this sounds reasonable (and your analysis looks good to me).
[...]
| So is it ok to also make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: ${sh
Hi folks,
I'm attempting to solve bug #502140 in pam, which is marked as
release-critical for lenny. Unfortunately, the only ways to solve this all
involve fiddling around with preinsts of transitively essential packages, so
per Policy 3.5 I'm asking here about my proposed solution to add Pre-Dep
5 matches
Mail list logo
