Rumble....Please answer to the bug address, not the list address....Otherwise discussions can't be followed in the BTS when coming back later on bugs.
This is why I entirely quote your message. Quoting Nicolas François ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 07:03:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This bug is tagged "fixed-upstream". > > > > That means that it should no more be here in 4.0.12. Is that right? > > > > The problem here becomes: such change has to go upstream. I can't > > imagine we diverge from upstream on that matter...so we first need to > > decide whether the bug is still here or not. > > > > The first example given by Helmut in the bug report works as Helmut > > expects...but it also works with 4.0.3-39...:-) > > > > The 'su -- - "$LOGNAME" -x' example does not work with either 4.0.3 or > > 4.0.12. > > > > So, it the bug still here (it seems to be)? > > > > If it isn't anymore, just close the bug...:-) > > > > If it is, then try convincing Tomasz he should adopt the patch(es) proposed > > > > Then build the transition plan with Debian maintainers.... > > This bug should not be fixed currently. > > It is fixed upstream because the submitter thinks upstream behavior is > correct, whereas Debian's su is not correct. > > We tried to fix it, but this broke pbuilder (remember Junichi blogs?;) > > The plan was to make a summary of the situation to debian-devel, and chose > whether 423_su_pass_args_without_concatenation should be applied or not. > This may also mean a transition. > > I have no real opinion: > * I prefer upstream behavior > * upstream's behavior is also used in other distrib / *nix > * upstream behavior breaks some important packages that currently depend > on Debian's su behavior. > I was wondering "If the bug is fixed upstream, then by which miracle is Debian's su behaviour different ? :-)" We now use upstream. Then I discovered the two 423 patches.... enforces the "old" behaviour and is applied So, now, we enforce the "old" behaviour with 423_su_arguments_are_concatenated to our su while we should actually just use upstream's behaviour by dropping this patch. Right ? 423_su_pass_args_without_concatenation was meant for 4.0.3 but should actually be useless. Going to the new behaviour is just dropping the 423_su_arguments_are_concatenated patch. OK? Helmut wrote a long and detailed HOWTO to help users, admins and maintainers to adapt their use of su. Fine. However, putting myself in the skin of a quite clueless maintainer, the first thought that comes would be "hey, I use "su" in my package...am I concerned by what these guys are changing"? So, we need a VERY SHORT, NON TECHNICAL document explaining this. I think it needs to have something like this structure, with no more than 3 lines per part: Introduction ------------ Briefly explain the change and the rationale, pointing at the bug number Short details ------------- Explain, with examples, the new su use cases that need to be adapted. Needed adaptations ------------------ Point people affected by this changes to the HOWTO (which will be released along with shadow ASAP, possibly with 4.0.13). Transition plan --------------- Explain when the new behaviour will be implemented, giving maintainers a deadline.