On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:39:57 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:37:46 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > > Mozilla actively makes it hard to stay up to date > > > > (by providing as little information as possible in their advisories); > > > > webkit (for the most part except for Apple announcements) makes it > > > > easy. This means security fixes are going to happen a lot faster since > > > > there is a lot less downtime waiting for patches to by disclosed. > > > > > > Actually, that's not true. It's pretty easy to track the security > > > related changes in mercurial now (that was indeed a problem when mozilla > > > was still using CVS), and security bugs are as documented as Webkit's. > > > The only difference, for now, is that we have access to the Webkit bugs > > > while we (still) don't have access to the Mozilla ones. But that should > > > happen some day. > > > > > > IOW, your point is void ;) > > > > OK, point taken (I don't have any perspective on mozilla's inner > > workings, so I didn't know this). However, do you want to continue > > suffering with the workload required to support the mozilla packages? > > The core problem I see is that there are two very vulnerable codebases > > currently planned to be supported, and manpower could be roughly halved > > if the codebases were reduced to one. > > The point in releasing squeeze with 3.5/1.9.1 is precisely to only have > to support one codebase for all mozilla based software in debian...
The point I was trying to make in that paragraph is that there are two browser codebases (webkit and mozilla) that need to be supported, which could be halved by dropping one. On the current path, there will be three mozilla versions that need to be supported; lenny, squeeze, and unstable (which is of course quasi-supported). On the new path, this could be reduced to one version; backports. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100629115147.3b6364df.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com
