Quoting Alessandro Ghedini (2015-05-18 14:33:18) > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> There are multiple ways to handle packages unsuitable for long-term >> maintenance: >> >> * Treat as "experimental" - e.g. mpv > > How is mpv unsuitable for long-term maintainance?
Oh, I simply assumed that was the case, but since we have an expert on the matter (yourself) let's ask: Why are some mpv packages targeted experimental rather than unstable, if not because those specific releases are treated (by you) as unsuitable for long-term maintenance? >> * Have security team treat as "too unreliable" - e.g. iceweasel > > We do provide security support for iceweasel. Where did you get the > idea that we don't? > > We don't backport fixes but just provide the latest stable release. Oh, you are right: Indeed iceweasel is not flagged as unsupported. I got warnings about libmozjs* and wrongly assumed it was used by iceweasel itself as well. Apparently Iceweasel gets off the hook by staticly linking libmoxjs (and xulrunner, but that has other more complex reasons, I believe). A proper example is netsurf-gtk (the one causing my confusion). > The situation with ffmpeg is completely different though, because > ffmpeg upstream actually documents which patches fix what security > issue: http://ffmpeg.org/security.html > > Something that libav upstream doesn't do. I am describing ways to handle packages unsuitable for long-term support here - not throwing mud between FFmpeg and Libav. You remarks above seem unrelated to this subtopic of mine. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers