mh at glandium.org
Thu Dec 28 21:15:17 UTC 2006
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:50:22PM +0100, Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:20:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 01:40:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I see Alex has uploaded version 220.127.116.11 of icedove. What should we take
> > > as a course of action for xulrunner, iceweasel and iceape ?
> > > Should we go with newer upstreams (note there's no official xulrunner
> > > release, but I fake them taking from tags in upstream cvs) or backport
> > > security fixes ?
> > > If the latter, alex, do you have a patch set for this ?
> > Um, this is completely without context for me. Is there something the
> > release team is being asked to comment on?
> > I don't care about version numbers of things you upload to unstable for
> > etch, I only care about what shows up in a debdiff. I think that policy is
> > spelled out pretty clearly, or do you have questions about it?
> To make it very clear : do you prefer security updates or new upstreams
> (security updates + version change + minor functional changes) ?
Considering there have been uploads of new upstreams for icedove and
iceweasel, already... the question will actually be, will you refuse
to push them in etch ?
More information about the pkg-mozilla-maintainers