Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:50:22PM +0100, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:20:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 01:40:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> >>>> I see Alex has uploaded version 1.5.0.9 of icedove. What should we take >>>> as a course of action for xulrunner, iceweasel and iceape ? >>>> Should we go with newer upstreams (note there's no official xulrunner >>>> release, but I fake them taking from tags in upstream cvs) or backport >>>> security fixes ? >>>> If the latter, alex, do you have a patch set for this ? >>> Um, this is completely without context for me. Is there something the >>> release team is being asked to comment on? >>> >>> I don't care about version numbers of things you upload to unstable for >>> etch, I only care about what shows up in a debdiff. I think that policy is >>> spelled out pretty clearly, or do you have questions about it? >> To make it very clear : do you prefer security updates or new upstreams >> (security updates + version change + minor functional changes) ? > > Considering there have been uploads of new upstreams for icedove and > iceweasel, already... the question will actually be, will you refuse > to push them in etch ? A starting point would be packages of iceweasel and iceape that are ready to migrate to etch... I personally prefer having working iceweasel and iceape packages in etch soon... It will probably depend on the 'minor' functional changes if we prefer the new upstream or not, but that's only important after having the packages in etch IMHO... Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature