Re: [SECURITY] [DSA 3148-1] chromium-browser end of life
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>> The backports team expects backporters to have demonstrated competence
>> with the packages that they're planning to upload. Anyone considering
>> this should first get involved with the package maintenance teams
>> first and help with a few unstable uploads.
>
> I understand. Good thing. But maybe the normal packagers could think
> about a backport.
For chromium, that's me, but it's not an interest of mine. If it's
going to happen, it will require a motivated volunteer with the itch
to do the work.
> In the past, Iceweasel and Icedove never had a year security support
> after a new release. Maybe there where other reasons to stop the
> support, but I think this should be seen as a problem/bug.
It's a lot of work maintaining web browsers. When the next stable
release comes out, that work doubles, so it is far more practical only
to support the newer one.
> In my opinion Iceweasel, Chromium, etc, don't belong in "main", they
> belong in "backports". Realize that backports is now enabled by default
> in Jessie.
That doesn't really change anything. The same build environment
issues leading to the -security decision for chromium would lead to
the exact same conclusion in -backports.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: