> Hi Simon, > > > Perhaps the situation would be easier for the security team if a > > IceCat package in Debian was based on the same ESR release as > > Iceweasel? > > I believe the situation would be easier if the actual changes in > IceCat could be identified and isolated and then brought up for > discussion with Mozilla/Firefox and Debian/iceweasel. I guess there > is a reason behind every change they did. What's a good way to do that efficiently? People have submitted bugs against Iceweasel to do some of the things that IceCat does by default, for example https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=654336 I'm not confident that there is sufficient interest from the Firefox/Iceweasel teams to considere these requests in a timely manner. Some of the differences are due to philosophical reasons which there may simply be disagreement on. But still there may be interest from users in having the functionality. The normal approach in that situation is to also package the fork of the projects to give users a choice, similar to what's done with MariaDB/MySQL. I understand there is a trade-off between how much time is spent supporting various different forks, but at some point there will be sufficient interest in a fork to warrant packaging it. I'm trying to understand if something could be done to make the costs lower (like basing it on the same ESR firefox release), so the packaging can happen sooner. /Simon
Attachment:
pgpNFePID4GZP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur