On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 16:56 +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >Who are these "quite a few users"? Where are they being confused? > > > because they used to have an iceweasel package, and now they have a firefox > instead > (different desktop file, different branding)
You're answering a different question, namely "why". I was asking for some information / pointers as to how you know they're being confused. Presumably there are several mailing list posts, IRC conversations, etc. > >> With this in stable, we can say to anyone who wants to keep Iceweasel: > >> "Run this command: > >> sudo apt-get install xul-ext-iceweasel-branding" > >> > >> Without bothering about backports. > > > >I understand the idea. I'm just not sure why this package is so special > >that they shouldn't "bother with backports". > > > the change iceweasel/firefox is in proposed-updates, so I proposed to have > the package in the same suite It's only in proposed-updates because it was in stable-security. This is not a change that was made via p-u. > >The relevant bits of that bug appear to be confused between the security > >archive, proposed-updates and stable-updates, which is unfortunate. > >(e.g. there is no firefox or iceweasel package in jessie-updates, nor > >has there ever been one.) > > > I'm not sure I follow here, but I tried to call rmadison on my machine > (I might have given the wrong command, sorry in advance) > > son -u debian firefox-esr > firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1 | proposed-updates | source, amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x > firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1 | testing | source, amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x > firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1 | unstable | source, amd64, arm64, > armel, armhf, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, > ppc64el, s390x You've just agreed with me. :-) The log for #815006 includes "I see esr is in wheezy-updates and jessie-updates, not backports." which your paste has clearly demonstrated is incorrect. (It's in security.d.o:wheezy/updates, security.d.o:jessie/updates and as a side-effect of the latter also in jessie-proposed-updates. It's in neither of wheezy-updates or jessie-updates.) > so, my proposal was to upload firefox-branding-iceweasel to proposed-updates > > (security is OT here, and I don't want to discuss that suite here) I don't see how it can possibly be off-topic. You're discussing a package that's intended to allow users to revert changes made in a package that _was released via the security archive_. > >I suspect we disagree as to whether this is a "bug" to begin with. > > > >It was an intentional choice on the part of the maintainers and the > >security team, and was announced in the corresponding DSA. Are there > >really users who aren't reading DSAs but are happy to install software > >as root just because you told them to? > > > there might be users that wants their name back, not sure who they are, > I don't want to have to answer here, but I still think giving users the choice > is something sane that might avoid troubles or complains. Sure. As I said, I'm not disagreeing with the concept, just whether p-u is the right means of delivering it. (and, no, "the change is in p-u" isn't an argument, as above - the change is in security, it just happens to be copied to p-u.) Regards, Adam
