On 08/12/2005 03:10 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> firefox (318061) it's resolved, Done, Will be archived: in 20 days.
>>
> I just looked at the bug and it is not closed. It's a visualization
> bug in our BTS IMO. I guess it has something to do with the new
> versioned bug tracking feature recently
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:50:43PM -0400, Ralph Katz wrote:
> firefox (318061) it's resolved, Done, Will be archived: in 20 days.
I just looked at the bug and it is not closed. It's a visualization bug in our
BTS
IMO. I guess it has something to do with the new versioned bug tracking feature
rec
On 08/04/2005 11:20 AM, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> I backported the newest versions of mozilla, firefox, thunderbird and
> enigmail to Sarge. (Sorry, no galeon or epiphany since I don't use
> them.) Anyone who wants them and is willing to trust me (shouldn't be
> too scary since I'm in the NM queu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralph Katz wrote:
> Troubling security news for sarge users of mozilla, firefox, and
> thunderbird is unfolding on debian-security:
[snip]
> Alexander Sack has backported thunderbird 1.06:
> http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/84-Sarge-Backport-Re
hacker (of golf) wrote:
Thanks for posting this .. I've been wondering why no updates on
firefox. In fact, pending updates, I already downloaded and am using
the mozilla.org tarball. I highly value having a secure browser, so
am willing to spend the extra time making it fit into sarge.
I'm no
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:21:23PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> ... There is also a proposal to allow the new upstream version into stable
> if that is the onky way to get the security fixes in. I am inclined to
> think that taking that approach is the better alternative since there are
> a
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 08:16:01PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
> ke6isf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Ralph Katz wrote:
> >
> > > Yet I'm wondering how other sarge users are going to address the
> > > security concerns? Backport, install
On 8/2/05, ke6isf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Ralph Katz wrote:
>
> > Yet I'm wondering how other sarge users are going to address the
> > security concerns? Backport, install from Mozilla tarball, upgrade to
> > unstable, change to kmail/konqueror?
>
> It would seem that th
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
ke6isf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Ralph Katz wrote:
>
> > Yet I'm wondering how other sarge users are going to address the
> > security concerns? Backport, install from Mozilla tarball, upgrade
> > to unstable, change to kmail/konquer
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Ralph Katz wrote:
> Yet I'm wondering how other sarge users are going to address the
> security concerns? Backport, install from Mozilla tarball, upgrade to
> unstable, change to kmail/konqueror?
It would seem that the easiest way to deal with this is to go off tree and
use t
Troubling security news for sarge users of mozilla, firefox, and
thunderbird is unfolding on debian-security:
> From: Martin Schulze
> it seems that less than two months after the release of sarge it is
> not possible to support Mozilla, Thunderbird, Firefox (and probably
> Galeon) packages anym
11 matches
Mail list logo
