On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, "Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > > Currently I have a problem though, policycoreutils in testing depends on > > libcgroup1 which isn't in testing. > > Really? Which architecture at you seeing that on? There shouldn't be > any packages in testing which depend on libcgroup1, otherwise it > wouldn't have managed to be removed. > > policycoreutils in unstable does indeed depend on libcgroup1; is that > what you meant?
policycoreutils version 2.1.10-9 doesn't depend on libcgroup1, the functionality in question never worked so I just removed it. I've fixed quite a few bugs including the mcstransd issue that was breaking upgrades from Squeeze. Also shortly before the freeze a number of packages were uploaded which call restorecon from their init.d scripts. If they are run with version 2.1.10-1 of policycoreutils then #662990 will hit them and play havoc with the system boot. Could you please do something to force policycoreutils 2.1.10-9 to testing to avoid all the problems that 2.1.10-1 has? Also what's the situation with selinux-policy-default? rmadison says that 2.20110726-8 is in sid, but I uploaded 2.20110726-9 yesterday (before the freeze was announced). Is 2.20110726-9 going to get in? It has a lot of little fixes that will prevent people being annoyed as well as a fix for #679277 which is fairly important. Thanks -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201207011616.25545.russ...@coker.com.au
