On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 08:01:37PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:57:22 -0600, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> >The issue is that, in order to reliably ensure that a user (such as the
> >admin) is not locked out by xscreensaver or xlockmore in the middle of an
> >upgrade,
> The relea
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:57:22 -0600, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>The issue is that, in order to reliably ensure that a user (such as the
>admin) is not locked out by xscreensaver or xlockmore in the middle of an
>upgrade,
The release notes strongly suggest not doing the upgrade from within
an X session
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Therefore I think it's neither necessary nor appropriate for libpam-modules
> to avoid a pre-dependency on debconf.
>
> Is it ok to make libpam-modules Pre-Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
> for lenny?
I think so. We already have many predepende
]] 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: ${sh
4 matches
Mail list logo
