* Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:05:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:38:02PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:13:37PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > > > Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca> writes: > > > > > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (he@ftwca.de) wrote: > > > > >> I would love to see an upload to unstable before you start with that > > > > >> work, so that we can get a releasable version of iceweasel into > > > > >> testing soon. If time allows, you can propose a new packages with > > > > >> reorganized/added patches at a later point, but right now, I would like > > > > >> to get big pieces like iceweasel finally ready for release. > > > > > I'll try to roll a new release tonight. > > > > > > This led to #413162 (and friends). Could you please do another upload > > > > fixing only this bug, so that we finally have a version that is > > > > releasable? > > > > > Plus, upstream is going to put up a 2.0.0.3 release fixing regressions > > > introduced in 2.0.0.1 and 2.0.0.2, including a fix on client certificate > > > handling that may be important at least for french people who want to do > > > their tax declaration online using iceweasel. > > > > We really need to be converging on the release at this point. If 2.0.0.3 > > doesn't include any RC fixes, please upload the 2.0.0.2 that you have so > > that we can get iceweasel into a releasable state and consider 2.0.0.3 when > > it's available. I don't think there's any harm in releasing 2.0.0.2+dfsg-3 right now, and then uploading 2.0.0.3 a few days later. I've screwed up the last few releases, so it would be good to make sure the little bugs are all out of the way so when 2.0.0.3 is released it will be a simple drop in. I'm building right now and will upload once it's built. You have approximately an hour to stop me if you really feel this is a bad idea. > Here are the bugs that are fixed in 2.0.0.3, so far: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=blocking1.8.1.3%2B&order=map_assigned_to.login_name,bugs.bug_id > > One is security wise, though I don't see any real critical impact for this... > I'd say #371525, #371576, and #370136 are pretty serious regressions. -- Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature