Bug#610292: unblock: iceowl/1.0~b1+dfsg2-1

["Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>]

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 09:16 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:43:38PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > The main problem I'm having with looking at this is the size of the diff
> > that gets introduced as a result.  Even after ignoring the test suite,
> > the embedded copy of sqlite3 and the autoconf patches, I'm still left
> > with
> > 
> >  2061 files changed, 65055 insertions(+), 96419 deletions(-)
> > 
> > which isn't particularly fun. :-/
> Yes, I agree - updating from 3.0.0 to 3.0.11 sucks but it will allow us
> to track icedove's security releases from now on with minimal impact.
[...]
> I fully understand that making these changes that late in the release is
> a bad thing but shipping unpatched xulrunner that reads external
> calendar data isn't great either. If the changes are too big we should
> reconsider pulling iceowl from squeeze. We could then come back with a
> better synched package for wheezy.

So, I really should stop procrastinating on this. :-/

Would I be correct in assuming that even with the new upstream tarball
the package would still not get official support from the security team
and any required security updates would have to go via proposed-updates?

Regards,

Adam