On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:25:58AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be > > > built > > > before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly > > > yet, > > > and I am (still) waiting for an upstream comment on how to fix it. > > > The change is done in unstable. Unstable have no security support. > > Should I assume you don't know how to properly build packages for a dist > > which is not unstable? > > He might be referring to the fact that xulrunner has been out-of-date on > mips* for over a month now due to build failures that look like they are > probably a gcc bug, thereby preventing security fixes (and updates to 27 > other significant packages) from reaching testing.
I was also referring to the iceweasel upload that happened this morning (french time). For the rest (xulrunner, iceape and icedove), not yet uploaded, we can explicitely use gcc4.1, but that would require extra care and testing, though still being a problem with mips* for xulrunner. On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:05:54PM +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The change is done in unstable. Unstable have no security support. > Should I assume you don't know how to properly build packages for a dist > which is not unstable? Do you suggest to go through testing-proposed-updates to get security fixes in testing ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
