Re: xulrunner 1.9.2 into sid?
Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@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 to date with respect to
> security updates (a matter of just recompiling the unstable/testing
> package for stable)
> - one (or almost the same) code base across backports and
> testing/unstable (and potentially oldstable-backports).
People have been dancing around this, but no one seems to have said it
directly, so I will. Packages that are excluded from the release are not
eligible for backports either. If Mozilla was not considered a candidate
for the release, it also wouldn't be permitted in the backports.org
repository (unless the policies of the various archives changed).
backports.org only accepts backports of packages that have migrated to
testing. Packages are only permitted to migrate to testing if they're
release candidates and are intended to be part of the next release. If we
were not going to include Mozilla in subsequent releases, that would mean
blocking it from migration with an RC bug, and that in turn would mean
that it could not be uploaded to backports.org.
I suspect the repository that you're looking for when you say backports is
actually volatile, although there are doubtless other issues with hosting
all of Mozilla there.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: