On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:46:02AM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:57:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:39:46AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > I'll let the RMs decide whether iceape and icedove upgrades are less > > > problematic since they don't involve reverse dependencies. > > > > Less problematic, certainly. > > > > Hopefully these updates won't have the problem of past mozilla > > new-upstream-version "security" fixes, where every single file shows up in > > the diff because of cvs keywords? > > Nope, they won't. But FWIW, here is a diffstat of the upstream > differences between 1.8.0.9 and 1.8.0.10 for a xulrunner checkout (which > includes some stuff from icedove and iceape, but not all). The diff > itself is 5MiB.
Here[1] is a pre-release of 1.8.0.10-1. I still need to check the dpatches, because some apply with fuzz and I want to be sure it doesn't introduce unintended rules/code. Maybe you could start reviewing the upstream diffs at least and give your opinion. I will try to test these packages today and/or tomorrow, but if in the meanwhile people using reverse dependencies could give it a try (especially for libnss3-0d, which means I'd like feedback from, for instance, evolution or gaim users that make use of SSL/TLS functionalities) Thanks Mike 1. http://web.glandium.org/debian/repository/unstable/xulrunner_1.8.0.10-1_i386.changes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
