On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:11:29PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Nicolas François wrote:
Dear Debian Release Managers,
Before uploading to unstable, I would like to know if you would allow a
new release of shadow.
Yes, looks reasonable: please upload.
1:4.1.1-3 was uploaded, ready to be
Nicolas François wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:11:29PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Nicolas François wrote:
Dear Debian Release Managers,
Before uploading to unstable, I would like to know if you would allow a
new release of shadow.
Yes, looks reasonable: please upload.
1:4.1.1-3 was
Dear Debian Release Managers,
Before uploading to unstable, I would like to know if you would allow a
new release of shadow.
Here is the relevant changelog:
shadow (1:4.1.1-3) unstable; urgency=low
* The Morbier release.
1) debian/patches/302_vim_selinux_support: Add SE Linux support to
Nicolas François wrote:
Dear Debian Release Managers,
Before uploading to unstable, I would like to know if you would allow a
new release of shadow.
Yes, looks reasonable: please upload.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 05:39:44PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote:
1) debian/patches/302_vim_selinux_support: Add SE Linux support to vipw/vigr.
Thanks to Russell Coker. Closes: #491907
[...]
1) was mentioned as the most important functional issue that needs to be
fixed for SE Linux
Nicolas François wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Nicolas François wrote:
I would like to make an update for shadow to fix a bug in the SHA password
encryption method.
I guess that's for unstable? If so, please go ahead.
shadow is now 10 days old.
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 07:32:45PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Nicolas François wrote:
I would like to make an update for shadow to fix a bug in the SHA password
encryption method.
I guess that's for unstable? If so, please go ahead.
shadow is now 10 days old.
No significant bugs were
Nicolas François wrote:
Dear RMs,
Hi
I would like to make an update for shadow to fix a bug in the SHA password
encryption method.
I guess that's for unstable? If so, please go ahead.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Hello,
Here is the patch I would like to get accepted:
debian/patches/300_SHA_crypt_method | 36
+
debian/patches/301_manpages_missing_options | 197
++
shadow-4.1.1/debian/changelog
[Nicolas François]
Compared to my previous mail, I added some comments in /etc/login.defs.
Will the comments in /etc/login.defs trigger a conffile prompt from
dpkg on installations where the local admin had edited login.defs
before the upgrade? If so, I urge you to not make such change in a
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Nicolas François]
Compared to my previous mail, I added some comments in /etc/login.defs.
Will the comments in /etc/login.defs trigger a conffile prompt from
dpkg on installations where the local admin had edited login.defs
before the upgrade?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 07:14:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Nicolas François]
Compared to my previous mail, I added some comments in /etc/login.defs.
Will the comments in /etc/login.defs trigger a conffile prompt from
dpkg on
Dear RMs,
I would like to make an update for shadow to fix a bug in the SHA password
encryption method.
I don't think this patch would be required for security reasons (I consider
the current SHA method, with the bug, still more secure as the MD5 password
encryption method), but I would prefer
13 matches
Mail list logo
