On Ma, 14 dec 10, 09:37:29, Lisi wrote:
> > >
> > > I was under the (mis?)apprehension that things were only installed from
> > > backports if I specifically asked for them, i.e. "-t lenny-backports" was
> > > added to aptitude, and were only updated if already installed.
> >
> > 'apt-cache policy
On Monday 13 December 2010 20:40:19 Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 13 dec 10, 19:57:50, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 December 2010 15:32:17 Camaleón wrote:
> > > On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
> > > > I have Lenny, and Iceweasel 3.5.15. Any updating has been done by
> > > > aptitu
On Monday 13 December 2010 20:11:19 Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:57:50 +, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 December 2010 15:32:17 Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
> >> > On Sunday 07 November 2010 23:24:17 Camaleón wrote:
> >> >> - What is the current
On Lu, 13 dec 10, 19:57:50, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 15:32:17 Camaleón wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
> > >
> > > I have Lenny, and Iceweasel 3.5.15. Any updating has been done by
> > > aptitude.
> >
> > Then you should have "backports" repository enable
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:57:50 +, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 15:32:17 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
>> > On Sunday 07 November 2010 23:24:17 Camaleón wrote:
>> >> - What is the current status of Iceweasel in Lenny? - Are all the
>> >> recent bug
On Sunday 05 December 2010 15:32:17 Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 November 2010 23:24:17 Camaleón wrote:
> >> - What is the current status of Iceweasel in Lenny? - Are all the
> >> recent bugs of Firefox -that can affect 3.0 branch- fixed/ backpo
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:14:12 +, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 23:24:17 Camaleón wrote:
>> - What is the current status of Iceweasel in Lenny? - Are all the
>> recent bugs of Firefox -that can affect 3.0 branch- fixed/ backported
>> to Iceweasel 3.0.6?
>> - Does 3.0.6 versioning numb
On Sunday 07 November 2010 23:24:17 Camaleón wrote:
> - What is the current status of Iceweasel in Lenny?
> - Are all the recent bugs of Firefox -that can affect 3.0 branch- fixed/
> backported to Iceweasel 3.0.6?
> - Does 3.0.6 versioning number follow the upstream numbering?
I have Lenny, and Ic
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:15:10 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 13:21:06 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:40:09 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> > On Vi, 05 nov 10, 19:47:58, Rob Owens wrote:
>> >> What I would like (and think they should have done in the cas
On Sunday 07 November 2010 13:21:06 Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:40:09 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Vi, 05 nov 10, 19:47:58, Rob Owens wrote:
> >> What I would like (and think they should have done in the case of
> >> Iceweasel) is issue a security update that is simply a message
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:40:09 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Vi, 05 nov 10, 19:47:58, Rob Owens wrote:
>> >
>> What I would like (and think they should have done in the case of
>> Iceweasel) is issue a security update that is simply a message to the
>> admin that stable's version of Iceweasel i
On Vi, 05 nov 10, 19:47:58, Rob Owens wrote:
> >
> What I would like (and think they should have done in the case of
> Iceweasel) is issue a security update that is simply a message to the
> admin that stable's version of Iceweasel is now unsupported. The
> security update should not automaticall
On 2010-11-06 12:42 +0100, Rob Owens wrote:
> Is there a procedure in place for dropping a package from stable?
Yes, this actually happens from time to time.
> Do the rules allow it?
Yes, but currently only at point releases.
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:05:44AM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> The ideal is that improvement of all Debian programs is done in collaboration
> with upstream. That not always the case, then DDs have to fill that role or
> drop the package. (Disregarding all the packages where Debian o
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:11:51 -0400, Doug wrote:
>> On 2010-11-05 15:38 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>>
> /snip/
>>
>>> I see only one reason to force the upgrade of a stock package with a
>>> newer version and is precisely the lack of support (nor patches) from
>>> upstream packager.
>>
> /snip/
You ar
Dne, 05. 11. 2010 23:30:19 je Kamaraju S Kusumanchi napisal(a):
Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 05. 11. 2010 15:10:44 je Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. napisal(a):
>
>> No. That's NOT what those who know and love Debian stable want.
The
>> lack of
>> upstream changes is one of the main reasons I use stable
In , Camaleón wrote:
>I prefer having no extensions at all than browsing the web with an
>unsupported browser :-).
Iceweasel 3.0.x isn't unsupported; Firefox 3.0.x is.[1] Security groups don't
stop disclosing vulnerabilities when Mozilla decides to stop supplying patches
and the security team (
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:07:13PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:48:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> > On 2010-11-05 17:48 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> >> Do you think Debian packages include all these bug fixes?
> >>
> >> http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/f
On 11/5/2010 12:00 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2010-11-05 15:38 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:10:44 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
/snip/
I see only one reason to force the upgrade of a stock package with a
newer version and is precisely the lack of support (nor patches
Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 05. 11. 2010 15:10:44 je Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. napisal(a):
>
>> No. That's NOT what those who know and love Debian stable want. The
>> lack of
>> upstream changes is one of the main reasons I use stable on servers.
>
> +1
> You can say that again.
>
+2
Seriously! I d
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:48:04 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-11-05 17:48 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Do you think Debian packages include all these bug fixes?
>>
>> http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox30.html
>
> No, MFSA 2009-11 is not fixed (that is a Firefox-only
On 2010-11-05 17:48 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:00:13 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> That is true, but the Debian iceweasel/xulrunner maintainer and the
>> security team backport security fixes.
>
> How is that possible? :-?
>
> As soon as Mozilla stopped offering security
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:00:13 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-11-05 15:38 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> What happens with Mozilla packages (more exactly with
>> Firefox/Iceweasel) is that upstream version correct security flaws,
>> meaning that right now, Debian's lenny stock version of Iceweas
On 2010-11-05 15:38 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:10:44 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Friday 05 November 2010 08:13:41 Camaleón wrote:
>
>>> > Thirdly, the policy of no new upstream versions after release isn't
>>> > changed for volatile. (It is changed for volati
Dne, 05. 11. 2010 15:10:44 je Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. napisal(a):
No. That's NOT what those who know and love Debian stable want. The
lack of
upstream changes is one of the main reasons I use stable on servers.
+1
You can say that again.
--
Cheerio,
Klistvud
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:10:44 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 08:13:41 Camaleón wrote:
>> > Thirdly, the policy of no new upstream versions after release isn't
>> > changed for volatile. (It is changed for volatile-sloppy.)
>>
>> And that is what people wants to
On Friday 05 November 2010 08:13:41 Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 07:54:29 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > In , Camaleón wrote:
> >>On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:30:11 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >>> There is a third choice, I guess: Ship firefox / thunderbird in
> >>> non-free
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 07:54:29 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In , Camaleón wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:30:11 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> There is a third choice, I guess: Ship firefox / thunderbird in
>>> non-free. Support for non-free is best-effort, which basically means
In , Camaleón wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:30:11 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> There is a third choice, I guess: Ship firefox / thunderbird in
>> non-free. Support for non-free is best-effort, which basically means
>> that if upstream is willing to fix it then the security team /
>> mai
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:04:46 +, Chris wrote:
>
> >> How about "volatile"? :-?
> >>
> >> ClamAV packages are there for that precisely reason (they need to be
> >> updated -security fixes- very often).
> >>
> > Why not simply grab the package fr
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 09:04:46 +, Chris wrote:
>> How about "volatile"? :-?
>>
>> ClamAV packages are there for that precisely reason (they need to be
>> updated -security fixes- very often).
>>
> Why not simply grab the package from mozilla and install under /opt Sent
It lacks system integrat
Why not simply grab the package from mozilla and install under /opt
Sent from my BlackBerry®
-Original Message-
From: Camaleón
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:38:21
To:
Subject: Mozilla products in Debian (was: A question for the list:)
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:30:11 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:30:11 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
(...)
> There is a third choice, I guess: Ship firefox / thunderbird in
> non-free. Support for non-free is best-effort, which basically means
> that if upstream is willing to fix it then the security team /
> maintainers will pac
33 matches
Mail list logo
