On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:48:10PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:19:46PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > mmmm, I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't > > in the Cc list... > > > > Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable > > (see further below)? > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > > diff --git a/debian/control.in b/debian/control.in > > > > index 56184ad..b5785a0 100644 > > > > --- a/debian/control.in > > > > +++ b/debian/control.in > > > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > > > > -Source: iceweasel > > > > +Source: firefox > > Excellent news! > > > > Which bring me to this thought: maybe upload a firefox package now that > > > doesn't have the iceweasel transition package, wait for 45 to be released, > > > upload firefox 45 and firefox-esr 45 with the latter providing a > > > transitional iceweasel package depending on it, so that iceweasel users > > That's personally fine with me; with the model that we're following ESR, > we're > bound to some changes in ESR upgrades anyway.
For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be by 45.2, at the beginning of June) Mike
