On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:08:36 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
Disadvantages of maintaining the status quo:
- part way through the release, security support will end and many
users won't even notice (unless they're subscribed to
debian-security); leaving a lot of the Debian user base
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 22:52, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
I believe I do. Backports are for recompilations of unstable packages
for the stable releases.
Thanks for excellently stating that you do *not* know about what is
backports about and for, you couldn't have done that better.
The second
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 08:31:25PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:07:27 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
Hopefully restating clearly this time: my proposal is to no longer
distribute mozilla packages in the main stable repository; instead they
can be maintained in
Hi!
Am 30.06.2010 02:31, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
Advantages of switching to backports:
- very simple for the maintainers to keep up to date with respect to
security updates (a matter of just recompiling the unstable/testing
package for stable)
As current maintainer of the iceweasel and
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:58:28AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Hi!
Am 30.06.2010 02:31, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
Advantages of switching to backports:
- very simple for the maintainers to keep up to date with respect to
security updates (a matter of just recompiling the
Hi!
I'd like to excuse for the style of my initial response, it was pretty
terse and just pointed out the misinterpretations without offering
corrections to them. I'd like to address them now.
* Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010
Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Have you discussed this proposal with other members of the security
team? And/or the relase team?
Ignoring the fact whether this is something possible or not currently,
just think of the rdepends.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:54:28 +0200 Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:36:11AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
Ah yes, Iceape. Their releases are so few and far between, this could
possibly mean that we won't see Iceweasel 3.6 or Icedove 3.1 for some
time, correct? Upstream Seamonkey
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
(by providing as little information as possible in their advisories);
webkit (for the most part except for Apple announcements) makes it
easy. This means security fixes are going
Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 02:57 -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
Losing mozilla wouldn't be that significant of an loss since there
are plenty of other good options nowadays (webkit, konquerer, chromium,
etc.), which wasn't the case a year or so ago.
I would love to get rid of it, but
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
and engage in poor supportability/secuirity practices (using embedded
code copies instead of system libraries) [0]. This path is
unnacceptable for Debian.
In my personal opinion, the only viable option left is to drop all
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:57:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
[1]. A Chromium extension named AdBlock exists, but it merely hides the
junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
being subjected to slowdown, having your bandwidth stolen, being tracked,
having
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:00:30PM +0200, Evgeni Golov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:57:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
[1]. A Chromium extension named AdBlock exists, but it merely hides the
junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
being subjected to
On 06/29/2010 03:57 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
[1]. A Chromium extension named AdBlock exists, but it merely hides the
junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
being subjected to slowdown, having your bandwidth stolen, being tracked,
having advertising scripts
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 04:57:53AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
On 06/29/2010 03:57 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
[2]. Chromium doesn't even understand the concept of session cookies. It
does allow purging cookies at exit -- but that applies to all cookies,
On 06/29/2010 05:16 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
Uhm, and that gets me what? It would nuke all cookies, including those
which are supposed to last beyond the session.
Touche. I misread your post, and Chromium's ability to do this by
default. Apologies.
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:57:20 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
and engage in poor supportability/secuirity practices (using embedded
code copies instead of system libraries) [0]. This path is
unnacceptable for Debian.
In my
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Same question as for Md with volatile:
apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
What do you do with these packages ? backports too ? Do you
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
(by providing as little information as possible in their advisories);
webkit (for the most part except for Apple
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date
(by providing as little information as possible in
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:39:57 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Same question as for Md with volatile:
apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
On 2010-06-29, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Same question as for Md with volatile:
apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
What do
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:03:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 29 juin 2010 à 02:57 -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
Losing mozilla wouldn't be that significant of an loss since there
are plenty of other good options nowadays (webkit, konquerer, chromium,
etc.), which wasn't the case
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
could be halved by dropping one.
As long as there are people to support both, why
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
Same question as for Md with
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:31:09 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
could be halved by dropping one.
As long as there are people
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:35:19 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two
browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which
could
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about
their reasoning, do you?
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about
their reasoning, do you?
I
Michael Gilbert schrieb am Tuesday, den 29. June 2010:
Hi,
In my personal opinion, the only viable option left is to drop all
mozilla and mozilla-depending packages from main, and provide them in
backports (as suggested already in another message in this thread).
Backports' rolling release
Hi!
* Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
You don't know
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:35:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
This apparently well-meaning idea that we can improve Debian's
security etc by talking people out of doing jobs that they have
volunteered to do, and are doing, is a recent trend that I really
don't understand.
Amen.
On Tue, Jun 29,
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [2010-06-28 11:55:22 CEST]:
On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
be more honest to just use volatile.
The catch-all for I can't maintain this stuff properly[1] is not
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Michael Gilbert
michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Hi!
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
You don't know the
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:25:06 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Hi!
* Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
No, my proposal is to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:26:04 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:35:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
This apparently well-meaning idea that we can improve Debian's
security etc by talking people out of doing jobs that they have
volunteered to do, and are doing, is a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:39:20PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de [2010-06-28 11:55:22 CEST]:
On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
be more honest to just use volatile.
The
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:07:27 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
Hopefully restating clearly this time: my proposal is to no longer
distribute mozilla packages in the main stable repository; instead they
can be maintained in backports (or volatile) at the choosing of the
maintainers of those packages
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
In the following lists, I break down the advantages and disadvantages of
each approach. If there are other thoughts, I would be happy to see
them included.
Advantages of switching to backports:
- very simple for the maintainers to keep up
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
Seeing as though upstream Firefox 3.6 released December 1, 2008, and
upstream Thunderbird 3.1 released just a couple days ago, it might be
high time to get xulrunner 1.9.2 into Sid, as both Iceweasel 3.6 and
Icedove 3.1 will depend
Hello,
On 06/27/2010 04:25 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
Seeing as though upstream Firefox 3.6 released December 1, 2008, and
upstream Thunderbird 3.1 released just a couple days ago, it might be
high time to get xulrunner 1.9.2 into Sid, as both Iceweasel 3.6 and
Icedove 3.1 will depend
On Jun 28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Unfortunately, as xpcom is guaranteed forward compatible but not
backwards compatible, some plugins and extensions, once built against
xulrunner 1.9.2, are likely to not work in iceape 2.0 anymore. This
would leave iceape users with a bitter
On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
be more honest to just use volatile.
The catch-all for I can't maintain this stuff properly[1] is not volatile,
but backports. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
[1] No
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:35:17AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Unfortunately, as xpcom is guaranteed forward compatible but not
backwards compatible, some plugins and extensions, once built against
xulrunner 1.9.2, are likely to not work in
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:55:22AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2010-06-28, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
If there is no manpower to do better than this then I feel that it would
be more honest to just use volatile.
The catch-all for I can't maintain this stuff properly[1] is not
On Jun 28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Speaking of backports, a way to streamline packages from testing to
backports would be very much helpful for packages like iceweasel, where
basically the package from testing can be installed on a lenny system
provided you already use backports
On 06/28/2010 02:34 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
The latter also applies for iceape and icedove, and is why 3.5/1.9.1 is
still considered as the release target: iceape 2.0, icedove 3.0, and
iceweasel 3.5 are all based on xulrunner/gecko 1.9.1. Security support
for stable will be easier if there is
@lists.debian.org
Cc: pkg-mozilla-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Objet : Re: xulrunner 1.9.2 into sid?
On Jun 28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Speaking of backports, a way to streamline packages from testing to
backports would be very much helpful for packages like iceweasel, where
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:36:11AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
Ah yes, Iceape. Their releases are so few and far between, this could
possibly mean that we won't see Iceweasel 3.6 or Icedove 3.1 for some
time, correct? Upstream Seamonkey 2.1 will be build against gecko 1.9.3,
but its release
On 06/28/2010 06:54 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 05:36:11AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
[snip]
Second, for the reasons given earlier, releasing with iceweasel 3.6 and
icedove 3.1 would mean to avoid releasing with iceape 2.0. This may not
be a huge problem, as we already
On Jun 28, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel
frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr wrote:
Do you have an entry explaining how to create from scratch a symbol file for
a given library ?
You add dh_makeshlibs -- -c4 to debian/rules and then edit the diff in
the error message.
Do not forget to
On 28/06/2010 14:29, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 28, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel
frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr wrote:
Do you have an entry explaining how to create from scratch a symbol file for
a given library ?
You add dh_makeshlibs -- -c4 to debian/rules and then edit the
PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
Do you have an entry explaining how to create from scratch a symbol file
for a given library ?
I could not find this information on the debian wiki.
thanks
Frederic
Hi,
$ man dpkg-gensymbols
aka
$ dpkg-gensymbols -plibfoo -v0.1.2
On 06/28/2010 03:38 AM, Steffen Möller wrote:
Hello,
On 06/27/2010 04:25 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
Seeing as though upstream Firefox 3.6 released December 1, 2008, and
upstream Thunderbird 3.1 released just a couple days ago, it might be
high time to get xulrunner 1.9.2 into Sid, as both
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 02:29:54PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 28, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel
frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr wrote:
Do you have an entry explaining how to create from scratch a symbol file
for a given library ?
You add dh_makeshlibs -- -c4 to
Le 28/06/2010 11:35, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Jun 28, Mike Hommeym...@glandium.org wrote:
Unfortunately, as xpcom is guaranteed forward compatible but not
backwards compatible, some plugins and extensions, once built against
xulrunner 1.9.2, are likely to not work in iceape 2.0 anymore.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 02:35, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On Jun 28, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Unfortunately, as xpcom is guaranteed forward compatible but not
backwards compatible, some plugins and extensions, once built against
xulrunner 1.9.2, are likely to not work in
On lun., 2010-06-28 at 17:55 +0200, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
I agree : on 64bit systems Iceweasel 3.5 is way too slow, and Iceweasel
3.6 should be included in Squeeze.
Thank you for volunteering, I'm sure Mike will take all the help you'll
give.
--
Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description:
Seeing as though upstream Firefox 3.6 released December 1, 2008, and
upstream Thunderbird 3.1 released just a couple days ago, it might be
high time to get xulrunner 1.9.2 into Sid, as both Iceweasel 3.6 and
Icedove 3.1 will depend on it. However, I hear there will be lots of
breakage if xulrunner
61 matches
Mail list logo
