Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
Hi, On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:36:15PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Guido, > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 02:40:01PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:29:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > > > > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > > > > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? > > > > > > I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might > > > be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the > > > outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low > > > overhead. > > > > Ping? Do you know now? Now with icedove 45.1 on it's way into wheezy-lts > > (currently waiting for NEW processing) I could have a look in case you > > don't want to / have the resources to support it. > > I think firefox-esr 45.2.0esr-1~deb7u1 was already uploaded, but no > DLA sent. It was accepted here: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-changes/2016/06/msg7.html I've subscribed to that list know and put out the DLA based on the DSA. Thanks! -- Guido
Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:29:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? > > I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might > be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the > outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low > overhead. Ping? Do you know now? Now with icedove 45.1 on it's way into wheezy-lts (currently waiting for NEW processing) I could have a look in case you don't want to / have the resources to support it. Cheers, -- Guido
Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 08:59:53AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi Mike, > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:29:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > > > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > > > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? > > > > I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might > > be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the > > outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low > > overhead. > > Given that the security team is fine with it I think moving to firefox > makes sense. Please let me know how you intend to handle it so I can > take care of it in case you don't want to support LTS. > > BTW any particular reason or starting with 45.2 and not 45.0 as stated in > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006#85 > > or is this just a resource problem. Because that leaves/left 12 weeks for things to settle down. Releasing 45.0esr to stable would have been a disaster without that kind of buffer. Mike
Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
Hi Mike, On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:29:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? > > I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might > be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the > outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low > overhead. Given that the security team is fine with it I think moving to firefox makes sense. Please let me know how you intend to handle it so I can take care of it in case you don't want to support LTS. BTW any particular reason or starting with 45.2 and not 45.0 as stated in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006#85 or is this just a resource problem. Cheers, -- Guido
Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:29:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? > > I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might > be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the > outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low > overhead. FWIW, I don't consider "adding new binary packages will prevent people from upgrading a valid argument", we're often adding new binary packages in a stable release already (e.g. kernel updates). Cheers, Moritz
Re: Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:34:29PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi Mike, > I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder > if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep > maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? I don't know yet. The last message in bug 815006 makes me think it might be better to avoid the rename to Firefox in stable, so depending on the outcome of that, continuing to support oldstable may or may not be low overhead. Mike
Iceweasel 45 for Wheezy-LTS
Hi Mike, I'm currently looking into building icedove 45 for Wheezy-LTS. I wonder if I should do the same for Iceweasel or if you intend to keep maintaining Iceweasel in LTS yourself? Cheers, -- Guido
