On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 10:11 +0000, Steve Langasek wrote: > This was uploaded to lucid, but has been rejected because of several > problems with the integration. > > - the package did not call pam-auth-update in the postinst or prerm, as > required by https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PAMConfigFrameworkSpec
Pity that this was not done earlier, like with one of the previous rolls of this package. How did it not get rejected before now because of this requirement? Was this requirement only just instantiated? If not, it seems kinda silly to allow something to fail a requirement through so many (pre-GA) releases only to reject it because it has not met the requirements so late in the game that it's too late to fix it. IOW, if this failure to meet requirements were flagged way back when it should have been, this package would not be in a state of not making it for Lucid. A process is broken and needs fixing. > - the profile above appears to declare that users with local-only accounts > will not be able to change their passwords because the pam_sss module is > 'requisite' for all password changes > - the 'Priority' field doesn't seem to follow the guidelines in > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PAMConfigFrameworkSpec All part and parcel of the same issue. Why was any of this not flagged the first time this package was introduced? > This is probably too late to get in for lucid release; pam-auth-update > is the preferred method, but this is very finicky stuff that we really > shouldn't change at the last minute. Pity. Let's at least get the process that allowed this to slip for so long corrected, yes? -- needs a /usr/share/pam-configs/sss https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/557398 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
