Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:45:53 +0000,
Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org> a écrit :
> TL;DR: read the freeze policy, and then go fish.
I'll probably go drink beers this looks more fun.
> On 2012-12-14 14:15, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > The changes are quite big (changes to the build system),
>
> ...which make it already unsuitable for Wheezy.
>
> > but the package
> > is pretty trivial (one arch all package) and it's easy to see
> > unwanted
> > changes (which I don't see).
> >
> > selinux-basics (0.5.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
> >
> > * Switch to dpkg-source 3.0 (native) format
>
> not acceptable [1]
>
> > * Switch to dh sequence and dh_python2
>
> not acceptable [1]
There is no usage of a python helper ATM, is that better?
>
> > * debian/control:
> > - Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (no further changes)
> > - Add ${misc:Depends} to the dependencies
> > - Update Vcs-* fields
> > - Add X-Python-Version field
> > - Put under the Debian SELinux team maintenance
>
> not acceptable [1]
>
> > * Remove udev rules, legacy ptys are not enabled in the kernel
> > since squeeze
> > (Closes: #622563)
>
> severity important for an optional package and could be done through
> unstable [1], so just about OK on its own
Surprisingly this is the only change here I was not 100% confident
that would not cause a regression for /some/ users using a custom
kernel (aka people that are compiling with the CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS
flag)..
>
> > * tests/21_pam.py: Fix detection whether selinux pam module is
> > called from
> > login service (Closes: #531660)
>
> not an RC bug.
The 1/3 of the package functionality is made of tests to troubleshoot
selinux installation and this is probably one of the most important
test to be sure that the user will be running in the correct context.
>
> > * Fix python 2.6 deprecations in several tests, thanks to Robert
> > Bihlmeyer
> > for the patches (Closes: #585354, #654608)
>
> not RC bugs.
Well that should be RC then, I get a complain about the script not
working no later than this morning. Isn't python >= 2.6 support
mandatory for wheezy?
>
> > * Add debian/gbp.conf file
>
> not acceptable [1]
This is only metadata for git-buildpackage, no functional changes,
really who cares?
>
> > * tests/21_pam.py: Fix path of the pam service file
>
> could be RC, if only there was a bug to reference
No user ever saw that the test was not working or bother to report.
> > * tests/02_verify_slash_selinux.py: Add support
> > for /sys/fs/selinux directory
>
> unlikely to be RC
/sys/fs/selinux is the new location since wheezy for the securefs
mountpoint, so yes I guess we want that.
> > * debian/selinux-basics.postinst: Only run update-grub if a
> > configuration
> > has been modified
>
> highly unlikely to be RC.
Indeed that was just cosmetic.
You might be tempted to RM this package from testing, just be aware
that it (unfortunately) also contains an initscript that is doing
relabeling during boot. Removing it would probably causes more troubles
to people that would like to use selinux than doing any good.
In the light of these new information, would anybody please advise me
what would be accepted (which was more or less the point of this bug
in the first place)?
Laurent Bigonville
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
