Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1013353 > unrolled thread

Bug#948188: New upstream release 1.4.0

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#948188: New upstream release 1.4.0 Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> - 2020-06-10 12:10 +0200
    Bug#948188: New upstream release 1.4.0 Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> - 2020-06-12 20:40 +0200
      Bug#948188: Debian pam 1.4.0 NMU - RFC pam_umask usergroups + Request for testing Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> - 2020-07-27 11:40 +0200

#1013353 — Bug#948188: New upstream release 1.4.0

Control: retitle -1 New upstream release 1.4.0

Hi,

There's now a new upstream release available, 1.4.0.

This release includes changes related to several of the outstanding
debian bts requests, among them:
- libxcrypt support (as discussed in this bug report)
- configurable default setting for usergroups
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=583958#103
  https://salsa.debian.org/vorlon/pam/-/merge_requests/3
- etc.

I'm interested in seeing atleast the usergroups issue fixed once and for
all. This is IMO best done by uploading the new upstream release and
adding the necessary debian integration work on top of that. There's so
far not been any input from maintainers on the discussion here. If
maintainers intend to work on the new upstream release or have any
objections towards it being done as a NMU then PLEASE SPEAK UP NOW!

(I have limited time available so don't want to waste it on preparing
the new upstream release if we won't actually upload it.)

If someone else has more time and is interested in working on preparing
the new upstream release, please do so and also please me/us that you're
doing so (by posting to this bug report and CC everyone involved?!).


Regards,
Andreas Henriksson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1013659

Control: forwarded -1 https://salsa.debian.org/ah/pam/-/commits/master-1.4.0

Hello again,

I've now pushed my initial work on updating the packaging to 1.4.0 here:

https://salsa.debian.org/ah/pam/

See master-1.4.0 and upstream-1.4.0 branches.

Current status is that it builds. I'll continue working on making it
ready for upload when I find time.

Please also note that there's a bunch of things related to deprecations
that I expect maintainers to eventually step up and clean up, which I'm
just avoiding to touch as much as I can (eg. I'm reenabling deprecated
modules, also updating patches which likely doesn't make sense to keep
around anymore since /etc/securetty doesn't exist, etc).

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1019446 — Bug#948188: Debian pam 1.4.0 NMU - RFC pam_umask usergroups + Request for testing

Hello all,

This is a final request for comment and request for testing.
I'll be NMUing this very soon unless I get some feedback.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:35:39PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://salsa.debian.org/ah/pam/-/commits/master-1.4.0
[...]

I've now done some basic testing of my previous packaging work
of pam 1.4.0 including pam_umask and usergroups enabled by default.
(As well as updating debian/NEWS and debian/changelog accordingly.)

There has been some previous discussion and apparent opposition towards
extending the common-* configuration, eg. in #207394 and
#583958 -> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pam/+bug/253096
I personally don't see it viable that all applications reimplement
the same thing and think umask is generic enough that it should be
globally enforced to avoid opening up any loopholes. If there's still
disagreement around this then please speak up now or forever hold your
breath!
See:
https://salsa.debian.org/ah/pam/-/commit/4b44d93dbb8c435e0ff314e4289e168cdfc9824e

I would be very happy if people who have more complex pam configurations
would test this! Do you have a need for a particular module being loaded
before pam_umask for example? (Someone claimed pam_group needs to be
loaded before pam_umask somewhere....)

In general I would also be very happy if someone could review the
rebasing of the debian/patches.

If you're busy but interested in helping out with testing, please shoot
me a mail so I'm aware of your interest and can give you some more time.
If the result is plain silence I'll likely go ahead with NMU very soon.

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web