>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> writes:
Paul> On 23-02-2021 19:17, Sam Hartman wrote: >> This is just a FYI, opened as a bug because you've expressed a Paul> If it's in time to migrate before March 12, there's nothing to Paul> unblock. We're still only in soft freeze and pam is not on Paul> our build-essentials list. Ah, I thought essential as well as build-essential was frozen. Pam is not technically essential but is pre-depends for several essentials. >> or I may want to ask for additional review before I'm ready to >> recommend inclusion in testing. Paul> Be aware that we're no PAM experts. At least, I have no clue. Nod, I was thinking of asking more broadly than debian-release if only because you are busy. Review will mostly be on the maintainer script and debconf side; the pam specific bits are not interesting. >> * 982530: removal of pam_tally Paul> Severity currently is "normal", sounds like that not correct? Paul> At least it means it's not on our radar. Definitely wrong. Wasn't sure whether it should be serious or grave. Admittedly leaving it as normal seems wrong. I have upgraded to serious. >> Plan is to detect the situation and scream in the preinst. Down >> side is that means new strings that need translation (debconf >> templates) Paul> And how about mentioning this in the release notes? Will do that too. >> * 982295: pam won't deal with upgrades without an init script Paul> "Only" severity important, again, do you think that is Paul> correct? Possibly. This one is important or serious. It's serious if there's some package that breaks badly that has actually removed its init script. I haven't dug around to prove that it's RC, and felt uncomfortable upgrading a bug in Steve's package (even though I'm an uploader) without proof.