Re: xulrunner 1.9.2 into sid?
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 be halved by dropping one.
> >
> > As long as there are people to support both, why drop one? I mean,
> > you're not involved in mozilla security support, why do you even
> > care?
>
> FWIW, this does not seem to be limited to one person, or one codebase.
> 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.
I really hope I haven't come across this way. It was certainly not
my intention. Like I said in my first post to this discussion, I think
a debate on the merit of the status quo with respect to the mozilla
packages is greatly needed right now. If the result of this debate is
maintaining the status quo, then that's just fine with me, but at least
all of the dirty laundry has been aired, and an informed decision made.
I also stated that I did't want to diminish Mike's work in any way.
He's done a great job, and I hope the package will continue to be
maintained. I just think that a more appropriate home is in backports.
This is the same solution that has been implemented for clamav due to
its short upstream support time frame.
As for my non-involvement in mozilla security, that actually isn't
true. I actually spent a great deal of effort to triage all of the
mozilla issues in the security tracker about a year ago, and submitted
bugs for the open ones. However, as a user, I have no access to
mozilla patches, so I could go no further. I did what I could to
improve mozilla security, then I just simply lost interest because I
found webkit to be actually tractable.
Anyway, I think debate is healthy, and hopefully a broadly beneficial
solution can be reached.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: