Re: pam

[Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 05:23:20PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2008 16:47, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 12:08:49PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=451722

> > > Is pam getting an exception from the freeze?

> > Yes, I discussed this with the release team and got approval prior to
> > uploading.  All I had to do was promise that it was 100% regression-free.
> > ;)

> Great!

> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=493181

> In the above bug report I have requested a config file comment change and 
> suggested that an application be made to have it included in Lenny.

> I realise that comment changes won't be really desired by the release team, 
> but I think it would be really good to have the comments matching the latest 
> code.

Does this point to a regression in pam_selinux's compatibility with configs
using it from etch?  Should we patch pam_selinux to map the obsolete
'multiple' option to something appropriate, to provide an upgrade path?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org