Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #224570

Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Ma, 07 iul 20, 16:28:16, Gary Dale wrote:
> 
> The package maintainers are who make packages stable, not the product
> developers.

Hmm...
 
> There is nothing to prevent a none-esr version of Firefox from making it
> into stable.

For the particular software named "Firefox" there is. It's Mozilla's 
trademark policy (remember Iceweasel?).

> The maintainers just need to install the bug fix patches
> created to fix the bugs in that particular version. This is exactly what
> they do when significant bugs are found in the stable version of any package
> (in fact, a significant security bug was patched in Stretch/Stable a couple
> of years back that broke things. I had to hold the package back until Buster
> became the new Stable).

Providing security support to software for ~3 years (2 in stable, and 1 
in oldstable) without upstream's cooperation is difficult. For a complex 
and exposed software like Firefox even more so (remember the OpenSSH 
keys issue?). 

> I agree that Mozilla's decision to abandon reasonable numbering is a
> problem. But the esr release is a year old at this point and will be even
> older by the time Bullseye becomes stable.

In my opinion the introduction of the ESR release by Mozilla was a big 
gain for all those who prefer to use the same software for significant 
periods of time (years rather than months) and is a must for any big 
organisation (think 100s or 1000s of users contacting the company IT 
support at every change of browser version).

> The other issue is what's the point of a non-esr package in SID if it's not
> going to make it down to Testing then Stable? Version 78 is the next esr
> release anyway, so why put the non-esr edition in SID?

For sid users, of course ;)

> Anyway, I run the esr version normally, but having a significantly newer
> version available for those who want it doesn't seem like a bad thing. I
> remember not too long ago when Stable had two versions of Scribus...

Sure, feel free to offer your support to the Firefox packaging team 
(err... person?), after you convinced Mozilla to change their trademark 
policy.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 00:20 +0200
  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-07 00:30 +0200
    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 05:30 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-07-07 10:00 +0200
    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Keith bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 05:50 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Keith bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2020-07-08 02:20 +0200
  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Bob Weber <bobrweber@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 02:10 +0200
    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 05:40 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 09:00 +0200
        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 15:50 +0200
          Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 16:00 +0200
            Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-07 16:10 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 16:30 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-08 17:20 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-07 17:40 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 18:10 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 18:10 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed  John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 18:40 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 19:30 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 19:40 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 19:50 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2020-07-08 23:20 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-07-07 18:50 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 19:30 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 21:20 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-07-07 21:40 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-07 23:30 +0200
            Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 22:30 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 22:50 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-07 23:00 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-07-07 23:10 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-07-07 23:50 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-08 07:20 +0200

csiph-web