Hi, On Fri May 11, 2007 at 14:39:51 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > At 1178878964 time_t, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > That is of "important" severity. Work has been done to mitigate the effects > > of > > that bug. Not resolved indeed, but worked around so it's not a critical > > issue > > anymore: it will work for most systems and conflicts with environments that > > may be insecure. > > > > There has been a message to that bug 4 months ago by the NMU'er saying why > > he > > thinks more information is needed before this could still be considered as > > RC. Currently only "it might crash with unknown pam modules" is the best > > available information, and no-one has gotten around to adding any > > clarification to that in the past 4 months. > > > > I don't know the policy on re-including packages, but bug #318123 should > > not > > be the thing blocking it unless there's more concrete evidence regarding > > which situation will expose users. > > AFAIK, the policy says: no way. > On the other hand, xscreensaver is from my POV a (very?) useful[0] package > so I'd like to consider it. For that, it should first be a good thing to > have a etch package available and a debdiff from the last version which was in > etch and the new proposed one. > > Martin, what do you think ?
I think we will/should not add/include packages, which weren't there in 4.0r0. Sorry. Greetings Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life No manual entry for real-life -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
