]] Steve Langasek
(Not wearing any particular hat here)
[...]
| Is it ok to make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
| for lenny?
Yes, I think this sounds reasonable (and your analysis looks good to me).
[...]
| So is it ok to also make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends} for
| lenny? For reference, the current shlibs (on i386) are:
|
| libc6 (>= 2.7-1), libdb4.6, libpam0g (>= 0.99.7.1), libselinux1 (>= 2.0.59)
|
| Again, these are all already transitively essential, so the main concern is
| whether further restricting the unpack order will cause any dependency
| loops, which I don't believe it will.
Testing or manually verifying that there are no loops is probably wise,
but otherwise this looks fine too.
| If y'all agree to this change, I can knock out the implementation within a
| couple of days and get another RC bug off the list - then I just have to
| accept the beatings from Christian for the implied addition of a new debconf
| template this late in the lenny freeze... :)
Just send him some cheese and red wine and he'll be happy. :-)
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
