[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Switching to mozilla ESR in stable-security



Le jeudi, 30 mai 2013 15.29:22, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:20:29PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > Which web browsers would remain in stable if we applied this criterion
> > > consistently?
> > 
> > Although that makes me very sad, if we (collectively) give up packaging
> > browser extensions (hence letting our users rely on third-party
> > repositories to get access to [non-]free binaries) and frozen browsers
> > in stable, then maybe the correct answer to your question is "none".
> 
> And do you think that would be the best outcome for Debian users?

No, not unless we'd provide said browsers in a different suite (hence the 
bikeshed proposal). That would make the difference in applied security polices 
clearer, IMHO.

> FWIW, I don't. I think the compromise that the security team is proposing is
> much more reasonable than such an alternative.

That compromise (which I do definitely support for wheezy) puzzles me most for 
the precedent it creates: if we "give up" [0] maintaining some of the most 
security-sensitive softwares up to our stable policy, why should other 
packages be bound to it?

> Note that the presence of non-free extension in the 3rd party
> repositories that come pre-configured with Debian-distributed browsers
> (and incresingly more other software) is a different problem.

The problem is equally worrying for both free and non-free extensions IMHO. 
Christoph worded it better than I could [1].

> And one we should tackle, IMHO, but that's for a separate discussion.

I'm not sure it's that much of a separate discussion: as the original message 
mentionned, we'll get the ESR17 and then ESR24 version of Firefox/Iceweasel in 
Wheezy, including the new features related to extensions and 3rd party 
repositories, which are out of our control. I must admit though that I don't 
know precisely how this area evolves and I do trust the "Maintainers of 
Mozilla-related packages" to do it right.

Cheers,

OdyX

[0] And that's _definitely_ not meant as fingerpointing anyone.
[1] <[🔎] 1369924284.5345.7.camel@fermat.scientia.net>


Reply to: