On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 05:23:20PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Friday 01 August 2008 16:47, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:08:49PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451722
> > > Is pam getting an exception from the freeze? > > Yes, I discussed this with the release team and got approval prior to > > uploading. All I had to do was promise that it was 100% regression-free. > > ;) > Great! > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=493181 > In the above bug report I have requested a config file comment change and > suggested that an application be made to have it included in Lenny. > I realise that comment changes won't be really desired by the release team, > but I think it would be really good to have the comments matching the latest > code. Does this point to a regression in pam_selinux's compatibility with configs using it from etch? Should we patch pam_selinux to map the obsolete 'multiple' option to something appropriate, to provide an upgrade path? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
