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

Re: Firefox ESR EOL



On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:37:18PM +0000, Tixy wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-12-09 at 14:18 +0000, piorunz wrote:
> > On 09/12/2021 12:47, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
> > 
> > > Hey Piotr,
> > > 
> > > a new release of Firefox ESR was uploaded to Sid two days ago and
> > > probably will be uploaded to stable soon.
> > > 
> > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox-esr&suite=sid
> > 
> > ESR 91 was first uploaded to sid in November. It didn't migrated to
> > Testing, or Stable, due to problems. Package tracker show some details:
> > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox-esr
> > 
> > There is a bug here:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001234
> > 
> > Rust compiler for Stable is not available? It means we have to continue
> > to use outdated, vulnerable Firefox ESR until this is resolved? When it
> > will be?
> 
> Think it's more complicated than just a compiler [1]
> 
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've just installed ESR 91
> direct from Firefox, as it seems Debian are likely to leave us with an
> insecure browser for a long time. Considering this was known about
> before the last release, you would have thought we would have been
> warned about it in the release notes, or through some other means.
> 
> The only mention of Firefox in the release notes is...
> 
>     For general web browser use we recommend Firefox or Chromium.
>     They will be kept up-to-date by rebuilding the current ESR
>     releases for stable.
> 
Work on this is nearing completion.

Please note that Mozilla is constantly updating to newer rustc and LLVM
versions.  That means that preparing a new major ESR release for Debian
requires not just the packaging of the firefox-esr and thunderbird
updates, but also some very complex toolchain components.  Those
components are usually already in unstable/testing, but for stable,
oldstable, and LTS, the toolchain must be backported first.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez


Reply to: