Re: Iceweasel version question

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 06:42:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2007-12-28 18:04 +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > Lenny seems to be stuck at the older (probably vulnerable) version > > because other release-critical bugs were found in the fixed version(s) > > in Sid. > > Not quite. The reas

Re: Iceweasel version question

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 18:42:45 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2007-12-28 18:04 +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > Lenny seems to be stuck at the older (probably vulnerable) version > > because other release-critical bugs were found in the fixed version(s) > > in Sid. > > Not quite. The reason

Re: Iceweasel version question

On 2007-12-28 18:04 +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > Lenny seems to be stuck at the older (probably vulnerable) version > because other release-critical bugs were found in the fixed version(s) > in Sid. Not quite. The reason Lenny is stuck at 2.0.0.8 is that the current version is not built on arm

Re: Iceweasel version question

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 09:24:47 -0500, S Scharf wrote: > Just curious, anyone know why/how debian stable is at version 2.0.0.10 for > iceweasel but > testing is still at 2.0.0.8? AFAIK, the newer version was brought to Etch for security reasons: http://www.debian.org/security/2007/dsa-1424 Lenn

Re: Iceweasel version question

S Scharf wrote: Just curious, anyone know why/how debian stable is at version 2.0.0.10 for iceweasel but testing is still at 2.0.0.8 ? Stuart It usually takes a month or so. One of the draw backs of testing. Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Iceweasel version question

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0500, S Scharf wrote: > Just curious, anyone know why/how debian stable is at version 2.0.0.10 for > iceweasel but > testing is still at 2.0.0.8? I'll bet that 2.0.0.8 is actually 2.0.0.80, which is higher than 2.0.0.10. Version numbering isn't always consistent