On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:46:30AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Hideki" == Hideki Yamane <henr...@iijmio-mail.jp> writes:
> control: tags -1 -patch -pending > I NACK this proposed NMU. > This many years after multiarch, I think it is entirely reasonable for > PAM to drop support for non-multiarch paths at the transition between > buster and bullseye. > As I said earlier in the bug, I'm happy to add breaks on libpam-yubico > or other packages as necessary. > I think Steve is quite familiar with multiarch and while he hasn't > commented yet I'm assuming he dropped those patch lines as part of > removing unnecessary upstream deltas. > I think you failed to read my comments in the 990412 bug log before > Merging and reassigning. For the record, I did not intentionally drop those lines, this was a matter of a mis-merge. My only concern about dropping support for the legacy path is that this is an API that may be used by third-party software, not just by Debian packages. I'm ok with requiring all Debian packages to use the multiarch path for PAM modules, provided libpam0g then also declares a Breaks: against older versions of those packages which use the legacy 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 https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature