Le jeudi, 30 mai 2013 00.10:11, Philip Hands a écrit : > Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> writes: > > Willi Mann <foss-ml@wm1.at> schrieb: > >> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > >>> As such, we'll switch to releasing the ESR releases of iceweasel > >>> and icedove in stable-security. > >> > >> wouldn't it be better to do the bumps of major ESR versions in point > >> releases? That might also allow a few more extensions to be updated. > > > > We need to release the security updates when ready and cannot > > realistically align the point releases with Mozilla releases. > > Does this perhaps indicate that these packages are not really suitable > for stable, and should instead be provided via backports or some similar > mechanism (i.e. a mozilla-bikeshed[1])? I concur. Although I very much understand the practical constraints leading to softening the "no new upstream versions in stable" policy for the specific case of browsers, it nevertheless feels as jumping on the "no stability exists outside of the latest upstream releases" bandwagon. If we can't handle the backporting of serious security issues on top of our stable version (in order to maximise the avoidance of regressions), then maybe said software shouldn't be shipped in stable in the first place. Thoughts ? OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.