[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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,

Reply to: