On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 04:42:37AM -0000, Daniel Richard G. wrote: > > But I suppose that's what NEWS.Debian is for.
> You could also stick in a debconf notice, like what x11-common had for a > while ("Major possible upgrade issues"). This is not considered good practice, and I don't think it's warranted in this case. I agree that this is what NEWS.Debian is for. > (Incidentally, Russ, Steve... what would you think of asking minimum_uid > as a debconf question, when initially creating krb5.conf? Other sites > may want to frob this setting as well.) They may want to, but I don't think the added complexity of debconf solely for what I believe is a rarely-used option makes sense. Given that a site-implementation of this requires nothing more than a simple sed one-liner ( sed -i -e'/pam_krb5/ { s/minimum_uid=[0-9]*/minimum_uid=9999/ }' /etc/pam.d/common-* ), I don't think debconf offers much benefit here. -- 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/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- Why is /usr/share/pam-configs/krb5 specifying minimum_uid= ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/369575 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to kerberos-configs in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs