Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Christopher Aillon wrote: You really don't see the value in having the engineers that own the code give technical review? I don't think this should be a requirement for each and every patch to ANY Fedora package. It is generally not necessary and delays fixing bugs a lot. Anyway, it's unfortunate that this really isn't done more often. I really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you aren't an upstream maintainer of the code. As it is now, it's somewhat scary to think how many packagers would take a bugfix patch and apply it without being able to figure out if there's a potential hidden exploit in it... And you think the average upstream is any better at this? Seriously? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Christopher Aillon wrote: This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now. Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi releases don't come out that frequently. Note that a large portion of the patchset between the latest libffi release and latest HEAD has come from Mozilla, who have pushed all their changes upstream and have had them merged successfully, and there are still more changes in the pipeline. Debian builds xulrunner-1.9.2.3 against the system libffi-3.0.9 and it just works. They even claim a minimum version of only = 3.0.5 for the dependency. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 07:57 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: But of course the underlying true issue is that Mozilla is refusing to guarantee backwards compatibility for the interfaces pretty much all existing apps used and in several cases still use, instead trying to force everyone to port to their new public API. I can't judge whether the original interfaces were so poorly designed they really can't be kept compatible (which reflects poorly on Mozilla) or whether they're just adding a useless wrapper because they refuse to stay compatible (which reflects even more poorly on them). With the caveat that I'm not really familiar with the situation, I think that assessment is unfair. If Mozilla feels the private interfaces are suboptimal and wants to adjust the design before committing to long-term stability, I think that's a reasonable decision. Let he who gets everything right the first time throw the first stone. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
mike cloaked wrote: One more point which may not be directly on thread but which IS important - many people use their browser for online banking and a good number of banks will not allow login from any browser not on their approved list. At present if you are running Firefox then most banks will allow login - if you switch to another less well recognised browser then users may find their bank will then not permit online access (possibly even if you switch user agent string!). For example in general chrome is working pretty well (yes it is not FOSS) - but my bank will not permit login using chrome in linux (though it will from Windows! This is because it won't allow a beta as it is not released code!). A released chromium may get allowed for such use but this is uncertain at present. I think you need to be careful with such issues - and also ensure that security is looked after vigorously for similar reasons. Switching away from Firefox to Iceweasel or Coldcoyote or whatever may not play nice with important sites such as banks! If we have it send Firefox's UA (or add an option to do it), which has been proven in court not to be trademark infringement, and also have it return Firefox for JS queries for the browser name, which is not trademark infringement for the same reason (it's required for interoperability), they have no way to tell the difference. (After all the code is the same except for the name and for distro integration patches they have no way to detect.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 02:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: I think that, sure, we should try to get patches upstreamed, but I don't see why we'd need to wait for their approval before applying them, other than due to the aforementioned trademark bureaucracy. You really don't see the value in having the engineers that own the code give technical review? Firefox and Thunderbird are the ONLY high-profile packages in Fedora working that way, and there must be very few packages in Fedora being maintained in this style. Getting sign-off is standard practice for the kernel too. Maybe we should drop that package? Anyway, it's unfortunate that this really isn't done more often. I really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you aren't an upstream maintainer of the code. As it is now, it's somewhat scary to think how many packagers would take a bugfix patch and apply it without being able to figure out if there's a potential hidden exploit in it... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: * libffi is bundled because there's no option to use the system version, This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now. Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi releases don't come out that frequently. Note that a large portion of the patchset between the latest libffi release and latest HEAD has come from Mozilla, who have pushed all their changes upstream and have had them merged successfully, and there are still more changes in the pipeline. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available for that issue at this time.) I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even read responses, such as: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/135250.html But, I'll re-iterate what Jan told you earlier in the thread that we've been working on it with upstream and have been for a while, and it's a HUGE undertaking. We've already made significant progress and have gotten quite a bit of the changes needed merged upstream already. See moz bug 377319 for the details. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote: But, I'll re-iterate what Jan told you earlier in the thread that we've been working on it with upstream and have been for a while, and it's a HUGE undertaking. We've already made significant progress and have gotten quite a bit of the changes needed merged upstream already. See moz bug 377319 for the details. And this is exactly why I personally find its okay to have the exceptional status of thunderbird packaging. There's observable progress towards fixing the problems that requires the exceptional status. I also think its perfectly fine for FESCO to review exceptional situations on a timely basis. Granting exceptions to our packaging policy shouldn't be done lightly..but it can also be beneficial when there is recognition that the problem is significant and is going to take some collaboration between Fedora developers and upstream to solve. If there is a demonstrable commitment to untangling the underlying problem..and there is observable progress..then renewing exceptional status on review is reasonable to me personally and I would hope reasonable for FESCO members. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote: Anyway, it's unfortunate that this really isn't done more often. I really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you aren't an upstream maintainer of the code. As it is now, it's somewhat scary to think how many packagers would take a bugfix patch and apply it without being able to figure out if there's a potential hidden exploit in it... The question is... is there a communication breakdown which let this particular patch linger in the review process for too long ? And if so, what can 'we' do to address that breakdown? It definitely seems there's recognition from Mozilla that something in the communication broke down from this sidebar discussion at LWN: http://lwn.net/Articles/385171/ The question I have is.. do 'we' understand our role in driving important issues up into upstream's review que to make sure it gets looked at in a timely way? It seems to me the review process worked like it was suppose to here...but it just didn't get triggered in a timely manner...partly because we didn't jump up and down about it being important. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Christopher Aillon (cail...@redhat.com) said: This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now. Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi releases don't come out that frequently. Note that a large portion of the patchset between the latest libffi release and latest HEAD has come from Mozilla, who have pushed all their changes upstream and have had them merged successfully, and there are still more changes in the pipeline. At least in F-13, we ship libffi-3.0.9, and the xulrunner-included version claims to be 3.0.8. Of course, older releases may be a different story. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/29/2010 12:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Christopher Aillon (cail...@redhat.com) said: This option doesn't exist because it's impossible to use right now. Just adding a --with-libffi doesn't actually make it useful since the minimum required version of libffi hasn't been released yet, and libffi releases don't come out that frequently. Note that a large portion of the patchset between the latest libffi release and latest HEAD has come from Mozilla, who have pushed all their changes upstream and have had them merged successfully, and there are still more changes in the pipeline. At least in F-13, we ship libffi-3.0.9, and the xulrunner-included version claims to be 3.0.8. Of course, older releases may be a different story. Sorry, Mozilla HEAD requires the latest HEAD of libffi (3.0.10pre), which is what I was thinking of. Still, the 3.0.8 that Mozilla ships is not vanilla and would need patching, though I don't know whether 3.0.9 has those patches or not. Since the work was still relatively recent, it wasn't a huge concern of mine especially given the other work we've got going on. I'm happy that Debian is adding this support and getting it upstream, just as I'm sure they're happy we're doing the Thunderbird XULRunner work. When it's upstreamed, we'll definitely use it, and I'm sure when our work gets upstream, they'll use that too. I don't see why we're the bad guy in this situation. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 10:58 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote: I really think that as a project, we'd be doing a lot better if we mandated upstream review before applying patches to any package if you aren't an upstream maintainer of the code. As it is now, it's somewhat scary to think how many packagers would take a bugfix patch and apply it without being able to figure out if there's a potential hidden exploit in it... Review, perhaps, but not approval. Fedora and upstream are independent organizations each pursing their own goals. Trademarks aside, Fedora shouldn't be bound by upstream decisions any more than upstream is bound by our packaging guidelines or obliged to accept patches to comply with them. For comparison, disapproval from upstream libpng sure didn't stop Mozilla from patching libpng with APNG support. And the relevant qualification for a reviewer is knowledge of the code, not affiliation with upstream. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 11:24 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available for that issue at this time.) I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even read responses, such as: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/135250.html That was uncalled for. The way I read Kevin's message, he was /acknowledging/ that the xulrunner unbundling requires significant development work and therefore left it out of his list of current complaints about the packaging. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Mozilla trademarks (Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available)
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, c.f. freedom 3 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You told us, you can't modify the sources and ship modified binaries = thunderbird and firefox are non-free, because of the trademarks Mozilla apply. You're right, the trademarks are detrimental to Fedora's stated goal of freedom, which includes the freedom to modify. I have entered a tracker bug requesting that trademark-unencumbered versions of all software at least be offered as an alternative, and a specific bug for the case of Firefox: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=582778 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=582784 The tracker bug could benefit from a memorable alias. What are the guidelines for choosing aliases? How about F-TrademarkFree? -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Christopher Aillon wrote: On 04/27/2010 02:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available for that issue at this time.) I'm not sure why I'm bothering responding if you're not going to even read responses, such as: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/135250.html I know about this. No fix available at this time means that we can't expect you to apply a fix which doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the OTHER problems don't need fixing. But, I'll re-iterate what Jan told you earlier in the thread that we've been working on it with upstream and have been for a while, and it's a HUGE undertaking. We've already made significant progress and have gotten quite a bit of the changes needed merged upstream already. See moz bug 377319 for the details. The biggest problem there is that you're trying to port the whole Thunderbird to the stable APIs. Firefox can get away with using the unstable API just fine, why can't this be done for Thunderbird? It just means it needs to be updated in lockstep, even if the matching upstream branch is not declared stable. But of course the underlying true issue is that Mozilla is refusing to guarantee backwards compatibility for the interfaces pretty much all existing apps used and in several cases still use, instead trying to force everyone to port to their new public API. I can't judge whether the original interfaces were so poorly designed they really can't be kept compatible (which reflects poorly on Mozilla) or whether they're just adding a useless wrapper because they refuse to stay compatible (which reflects even more poorly on them). But of course this issue is something only a full-blown fork could even attempt to solve. And of course Firefox gets to use the private API forever. Wasn't Mozilla among the ones complaining about IE using private APIs? Why are they doing the same in Firefox? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote: On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty decent mail client. This thread has morphed ... As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind chromium - google-chrome is an order of magnitude better than firefox - if chromium can be made comparable we don't need to fuss about firefox - lets fuss about chromium/google-chrome instead :-) One more point which may not be directly on thread but which IS important - many people use their browser for online banking and a good number of banks will not allow login from any browser not on their approved list. At present if you are running Firefox then most banks will allow login - if you switch to another less well recognised browser then users may find their bank will then not permit online access (possibly even if you switch user agent string!). For example in general chrome is working pretty well (yes it is not FOSS) - but my bank will not permit login using chrome in linux (though it will from Windows! This is because it won't allow a beta as it is not released code!). A released chromium may get allowed for such use but this is uncertain at present. I think you need to be careful with such issues - and also ensure that security is looked after vigorously for similar reasons. Switching away from Firefox to Iceweasel or Coldcoyote or whatever may not play nice with important sites such as banks! -- mike c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:59:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote: Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla browser would be a much better choice. The way Firefox does it, is more to help companies sell certificates than to actually help security. agreed. I did recently look into the list of CAs trusted by Firefox, it looks bad. There are CAs from countries all over the world. I would say that 99% of users do not need a CA from some mid-eastern or far-eastern countries. But each and every of these can give a forged certificate for anything that will be gladly accepted by Firefox. To me the security model of Firefox appears too permissive. I have seen online banks which do include page elements, even javascript from 3 parties severs, different domains and certificates. Yet there is one URL shown and the user is lead to believe everthing is certified by the same authority. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:39:37AM +0100, mike cloaked wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote: On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty decent mail client. This thread has morphed ... As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind chromium - google-chrome is an order of magnitude better than firefox - if chromium can be made comparable we don't need to fuss about firefox - lets fuss about chromium/google-chrome instead :-) One more point which may not be directly on thread but which IS important - many people use their browser for online banking and a good number of banks will not allow login from any browser not on their approved list. thats why many popular browsers still use spoofed user-agent ids by default. If the banks do adhere to standards there is no use for checking user-agent. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 16:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: As a propopent of Free SW, my interest is to fight those who are applying trademarks to undermine the principles of free SW. This is not what Mozilla is doing. They are applying trademarks to protect the names Mozilla, Firefox and Thunderbird. Consider what could happen if they didn't; any Tom, Dick or Harry could 'patch' their advert, badly-conceived 'feature' or, hell, piece of malware into Firefox and call it Firefox, and Mozilla couldn't say boo to them for it. Yes, this is true of many pieces of software that Fedora also ships, Correct. but there's no real motive to do it to most of those; they don't have Mozilla's profile. Untrue, c.f. Gnome, KDE, QT, GCC, GNU and many more. If Mozilla's intent was in fact to undermine the principles of free SW, they would make it as hard as possible to debrand Firefox; they do rather the opposite. I disagree. Their trademark policy is already doing it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 10:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: IMO, *no* - it's time to spread the world about Mozilla's trademark policy violating the prinicples of Free SW and Fedora's Mozilla being hostage of it. You mean, much like the Fedora and Red Hat trademark policies, which say almost the exact same things? Correct. The Fedora distro itself is non-free because of similar trademark games. You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora, just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call it Firefox. Correct. Similar as Fedora/RH's restrictive trademark policies prevents people from enhancing/bugfixing Fedora, Mozilla's trademarks policies prevents Fedora from enhancing/bugfixing Firefox/Thunderbird. The resort to both Fedora/RH's and Mozilla's trademark policies is to rebrand or abandon. Wrt. to Mozilla package in Fedora, the problem is Fedora containing packages which clearly violate the prinicples Fedora once was founded on (Freedom) and which infect Fedora with effects of Non-Free SW (e.g. unfixable bugs) == Mozilla's trademark games voids the effects of OSS. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 10:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: I wrote: Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. Another one: Thunderbird STILL bundles its own Gecko instead of using the system xulrunner, another blatant violation of our packaging guidelines. Nothing is done to fix this issue because upstream does not care and we can't change what they ship. Hi, Thunderbird is unable to use system xulrunner yet. We are working with upstream to fix it. Believe me, it's not a trivial task: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377319 (see also depends bugs). -- jh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Adam Williamson wrote: I think a rather large part of the problem here is that all the above 'special exception' pleading applies far more to Firefox than it does to Thunderbird. Firefox is a special exception; it's a phenomenon, the single most successful F/OSS app, an app with its own very definite distinct identity which many people know. It clearly does have a reputation to protect and I can entirely agree with it being very careful about that. Thunderbird...uhhh, not so much. It's nowhere near as popular as Firefox. Most people don't know what it is. It's not really a 'special exception'; it's just another application like the ten gazillion others we ship which don't have onerous trademark restrictions attached. I think it'd be appropriate for Mozilla to take a rather more liberal line with Thunderbird than it does with Firefox, if that's legally plausible. Agreed, but I think even Firefox doesn't deserve this kind of preferential treatment. In fact, I don't see Firefox as being the absolute requirement it's painted to be at all, we could even consider just not shipping it at all and picking a different default browser for the GNOME spin, e.g. Epiphany which is the official GNOME browser. (The KDE spin already does not ship Firefox, we default to Konqueror.) It's just a web browser. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Adam Williamson wrote: You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora, just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call it Firefox. Both of us do this to protect the good name of the project. We'd be in an extremely glass house-y situation if we tried to 'call out' Mozilla over this. It'd be ridiculous. That has not been an issue for Debian. It perfectly makes sense that you'd want to protect your own name, but still not use somebody else's similarly protected name because it prevents you from shipping what you want to ship. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Peter Lemenkov wrote: Rebranding can be a difficult task, but this task also can be easily measured in man-hours, man-days or man-months, and this would be a ultimate solution, while chatting with lawers can consume much more time w/o success (nothing personal here). And the rebranding work has already been done by Debian. We should ask them whether they're OK with us using the iceweasel name even if we apply different patches than they do. If they're OK with that, we could just use their patch as is, if not, we'd pick another name, but their patch would still point us to the exact places to change. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: In fact, I don't see Firefox as being the absolute requirement it's painted to be at all, we could even consider just not shipping it at all and picking a different default browser for the GNOME spin, e.g. Epiphany which is the official GNOME browser. Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla browser would be a much better choice. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote: Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla browser would be a much better choice. The way Firefox does it, is more to help companies sell certificates than to actually help security. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Christopher Aillon wrote: Mozilla has to bundle to ship on Windows, Mac, even their builds for Linux where they don't control what versions of libraries are present on the system, if they are installed at all (hooray choice!). That has absolutely no bearing at all on Fedora however because we can and do build with system libraries, and have done so for ages, precisely because they are good at providing build support for that. We can build with some system libraries. But there are still bundled ones being used: * libpng is bundled due to APNG support, * libffi is bundled because there's no option to use the system version, Debian has a patch to fix that, we don't use it. There may also be more bundled libraries, I've just mentioned the ones where I've noticed Debian has fixes. (In addition, Thunderbird bundles xulrunner, but there's no fix available for that issue at this time.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 16:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 17:55:39 -0400, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote: Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla browser would be a much better choice. The way Firefox does it, is more to help companies sell certificates than to actually help security. I don't want to repeat that debate here. Please see: http://www.gerv.net/security/self-signed-certs/ -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 00:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Matt McCutchen wrote: Epiphany is a non-starter. In the default configuration, it doesn't validate SSL certificates at all (bug 569577). An unbranded Mozilla browser would be a much better choice. That's a wrong bug ID. RH/Fedora bug 569577 is a Nautilus crash. GNOME bug 569577 is a Banshee bug. Whoops. It's Fedora bug 569677. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Bruno Wolff III wrote: The way Firefox does it, is more to help companies sell certificates than to actually help security. +1 All it does is it leads people to use completely unencrypted HTTP instead, to avoid the big scary warnings. How does that provide any added security? I like the way Konqueror handles this: it does complain about self-signed or otherwise invalid certs, but it allows you to accept them either temporarily (for the duration of the session) or permanently in 2 clicks (one to accept and one to choose whether to accept it for the session or forever). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:55 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: You mean compliance with Mozilla's own standards such as APNG which require a bundled hacked version of a system library to support? Kevin, you keep bringing up APNG, so let me address that one. I know the story because the Mozilla implementation was originally written by a former student, Andrew Smith. The decision to back PNG and fork libpng was not made lightly -- it's a significant maintenance burden for Mozilla. APNG was created to fill a void -- there was a need for a modern animated format with two qualities: it needed to be lightweight and backward-compatible (degrade gracefully). After nearly a year of discussion and consultation, the PNG group decided not to back it; Mozilla gave it further thought and decided they needed it. It has since been implemented by other browsers (such as Opera) and used in other applications (such as WorldDMB, see ESTI TS 101 499 V2.2.1). The alternative, MNG, is a heavy spec that offers no graceful degradation for older browsers. It's been around for years, but is almost never used. If it was a lighter spec, surely we'd be using it for animated cursors and throbbers by now. -Chris -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 23:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora, just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call it Firefox. Both of us do this to protect the good name of the project. We'd be in an extremely glass house-y situation if we tried to 'call out' Mozilla over this. It'd be ridiculous. That has not been an issue for Debian. It perfectly makes sense that you'd want to protect your own name, but still not use somebody else's similarly protected name because it prevents you from shipping what you want to ship. I wasn't suggesting it'd prevent us from shipping an unbranded Firefox / Thunderbird if we wanted to. I was just saying that it would stop us from pitching some kind of public hissy fit about how unreasonable Mozilla was being, as Ralf seemed to be advocating. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Chris Tyler wrote: APNG was created to fill a void -- there was a need for a modern animated format with two qualities: it needed to be lightweight and backward-compatible (degrade gracefully). After nearly a year of discussion and consultation, the PNG group decided not to back it; Because they already have a perfectly fine format, MNG, which Mozilla decided to drop support for. And in fact the main reason graceful degradation is needed at all is browsers not supporting the format. What do you suggest next? That all images need to gracefully degrade in a browser which only supports GIF, such as the original Mosaic? The fact that support for animations is being hacked into a format designed for still images is one of the complaints the PNG group had about APNG. Mozilla gave it further thought and decided they needed it. It has since been implemented by other browsers (such as Opera) and used in other applications (such as WorldDMB, see ESTI TS 101 499 V2.2.1). That's 2 of the major browsers. Come back when you get M$, Google, Apple etc. to support it. Even MNG had wider support before Mozilla dropped it, e.g. Konqueror in KDE 3 supported it just fine. (Sadly, in KDE 4, support for animations in Konqueror regressed and MNG was one of the victims of it. Other problems include: stop animations initially didn't work, I fixed that; animated GIFs don't animate when resized, at least last I checked. But that's not a Mozilla issue.) The alternative, MNG, is a heavy spec that offers no graceful degradation for older browsers. It's been around for years, but is almost never used. If it was a lighter spec, surely we'd be using it for animated cursors and throbbers by now. The main reason it's almost never used is lack of browser support. Mozilla dropping their existing support for it definitely did not help! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty decent mail client. This thread has morphed ... As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind chromium - google-chrome is an order of magnitude better than firefox - if chromium can be made comparable we don't need to fuss about firefox - lets fuss about chromium/google-chrome instead :-) gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun 25 April 2010 2:55:58 pm Kevin Kofler wrote: They still suck in the system integration domain in many ways, e.g. openSUSE's KDE integration patches have yet to be merged, and of course our maintainers refuse to merge openSUSE's patches due to the usual trademark concerns In their defense, those patches are fairly messy. -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
I wrote: Yes, definitely. We should ask Debian about using the ice* names they're using, and also share patches with them. An alternative would be using GNU IceCat: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ but they don't have a rebranded Thunderbird. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. Yeah, but most computer users isn't relevant. The question is about what is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a significant affect on them. Not a nice idea, but, at least as a temporary workaround, could Fedora ship both a Firefox and an Iceweasel; Firefox complying with the trademark rules, and Iceweasel working as users would want it. Could the Fedora shipped Firefox even have a home page that says Have you tried Iceweasel ...? And bugs reported against Firefox could be closed with Fixed in Iceweasel. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Quentin Armitage quen...@armitage.org.uk wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. Yeah, but most computer users isn't relevant. The question is about what is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a significant affect on them. Not a nice idea, but, at least as a temporary workaround, could Fedora ship both a Firefox and an Iceweasel; Firefox complying with the trademark rules, and Iceweasel working as users would want it. Could the Fedora shipped Firefox even have a home page that says Have you tried Iceweasel ...? And bugs reported against Firefox could be closed with Fixed in Iceweasel. That is nonsense ... it just creates confusion and maintenance overhead. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote: On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough to release a fixed version in a timely manner. OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ... can disconnect the network all i want .. no crash. The fedora build works fine for me too. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 07:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. Does this justify Fedora throwing the principles of Free SW over board? IMO, *no* - it's time to spread the world about Mozilla's trademark policy violating the prinicples of Free SW and Fedora's Mozilla being hostage of it. In other words, if Fedora hasn't already entirely abandoned the original motivations and foundations it once was based on, it's time for Fedora to very serously reconsider their attitude on Mozilla packages. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 11:48 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Bruno Wolff III wrote: Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue? Knowing my fellow FESCo members, I don't think I'll get a majority to agree with me. :-( Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's freedom 3 [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora. Ralf [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's freedom 3 [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora. Ralf [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is (except for firmware) but before you wave it around, you will do well to ask FSF whether the Mozilla trademark guidelines violate it. My understanding is that, they don't consider it a violation and yes, I have actually asked them. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 10:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's freedom 3 [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora. Ralf [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is (except for firmware) ... and on Fedora's own trademark encumbered packages. but before you wave it around, you will do well to ask FSF whether the Mozilla trademark guidelines violate it. I know - I had a discussion with a FSF-representative on this. But ... many people disagree with this. As well as the facts speak for themselves: * The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched. Cause: The package is non-free. * The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG. Cause the packages are non-free. Openly speaking, I feel RH is not interested addressing this issues, likely for political reasons or for marketing reason - A too high price to pay, if you ask me. My understanding is that, they don't consider it a violation and yes, I have actually asked them. Well, Mozilla license definitely is an open-source license. It's just that the Mozilla packages in Fedora are non-free. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 07:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 04/26/2010 10:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 04/26/2010 02:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, may-be FESCO should decide upon on whether the FSF's freedom 3 [1] is a inclusion/exclusion criterion for packages in Fedora. Ralf [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html It is (except for firmware) ... and on Fedora's own trademark encumbered packages. No. Only firmware. Fedora's trademarks are not a problem at all. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html. Well, Mozilla license definitely is an open-source license. It's just that the Mozilla packages in Fedora are non-free. How? Your claim here is certainly not supported by the FSF. although they have some issues with the recommendation of non-free plugins and if you consider it a legal question, it is outside the scope of FESCo. FESCo can still discuss it from a policy perspective but then pointing to FSF guidelines confuses a policy discussion with a legal one. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: * The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched. Cause: The package is non-free. * The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG. Cause the packages are non-free. Neither of these are true. The Fedora Mozilla packages can be bug-fixed/patched. If Mozilla doesn't accept the patches upstream first, we would no longer have permission to use their trademarks, and would need to remove them when we did so. As to why we have not simply patched at will, and discarded the trademarks, well, I think that is ultimately up to FESCo and the Maintainer(s) to decide how we wish to operate in that manner. Personally, I feel that there is name-recognition value in the Mozilla trademarks, and we should make every effort to try to discuss a compromise with them to allow us a bit more flexibility while retaining the trademark use. Perhaps this is a discussion that could be opened with Luis Villa? ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
2010/4/26 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: The Fedora Mozilla packages can be bug-fixed/patched. If Mozilla doesn't accept the patches upstream first, we would no longer have permission to use their trademarks, and would need to remove them when we did so. You just said something like yes we can, but Mozilla will deny - this is exactly what Ralf told us earlier. As to why we have not simply patched at will, and discarded the trademarks, well, I think that is ultimately up to FESCo and the Maintainer(s) to decide how we wish to operate in that manner. It's not up to maintainer to decide whether to provide non-free package in Fedora. And I don't see why we need to ask FESCo for resolution of this (clearly visible for almost everyone) violation of our guidelines. Personally, I feel that there is name-recognition value in the Mozilla trademarks, and we should make every effort to try to discuss a compromise with them to allow us a bit more flexibility while retaining the trademark use. Perhaps this is a discussion that could be opened with Luis Villa? Rebranding can be a difficult task, but this task also can be easily measured in man-hours, man-days or man-months, and this would be a ultimate solution, while chatting with lawers can consume much more time w/o success (nothing personal here). -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 07:26 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: As to why we have not simply patched at will, and discarded the trademarks, well, I think that is ultimately up to FESCo and the Maintainer(s) to decide how we wish to operate in that manner. Alright. So I have filed this issue with FESCo since we are unlikely to find consensus on our own https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/369 Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 07:44 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: It's not up to maintainer to decide whether to provide non-free package in Fedora. And I don't see why we need to ask FESCo for resolution of this (clearly visible for almost everyone) violation of our guidelines. Mozilla has some restrictive trademark guidelines but it nevertheless Free software w.rt to copyright licensing (triple licensing with GPL, LGPL and MPL) and is fully compliant with Fedora licensing guidelines. It does violate Fedora packaging guidelines but FESCo is authorized to give exceptions and decide on policy matters and I have filed it at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/369 Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 03:56 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 04/26/2010 09:35 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: * The Fedora Mozilla packages can't be bug-fixed/patched. Cause: The package is non-free. * The Fedora Mozilla package can't be made compliant to the FPG. Cause the packages are non-free. Neither of these are true. The Fedora Mozilla packages can be bug-fixed/patched. This was what Martin Stransky had claimed. A I understood his claim: He can't apply patches/bug fixes to Fedora's Thunderbird, because this would void Mozilla's trademark. IMO, the techical impacts of this are clearly visible in Fedora's packages, such as the clear FPG violations Kevin has elaborated. Personally, I feel that there is name-recognition value in the Mozilla trademarks, As I already said, I feel this what RH is interested in for political or marketing reasons. As a propopent of Free SW, my interest is to fight those who are applying trademarks to undermine the principles of free SW. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 4/25/2010 8:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. I disagree with your criteria. The visibility in of itself is not relevant; its consequences are. The important criteria, in my eyes, are: 1) Does the Mozilla name attract users to Fedora or keep them with Fedora once they have tasted it? 2) Would Fedora lose users if it dropped the trademarked name? 3) Does Fedora lose users by having unpatched versions of Firefox etc.? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 14:48 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: * The trademark rules are there for a reason. Browser and e-mail clients are some of the most common attack points on desktop systems, and Mozilla needs to ensure that they don't get a black eye for some vulnerability introduced by a distro. And distros definitely introduce vulnerabilities: think about the Debian ssh-keygen patch fiasco as an example. We wouldn't do something so rash, of course -- or would we? The suggestion earlier in this thread that we patch TB and push directly to stable does not instill confidence. (We have the freedom to turn off the branding anytime and use the code however we want, but why give up the marketing value? and why give up the testing?) I think a rather large part of the problem here is that all the above 'special exception' pleading applies far more to Firefox than it does to Thunderbird. Firefox is a special exception; it's a phenomenon, the single most successful F/OSS app, an app with its own very definite distinct identity which many people know. It clearly does have a reputation to protect and I can entirely agree with it being very careful about that. Thunderbird...uhhh, not so much. It's nowhere near as popular as Firefox. Most people don't know what it is. It's not really a 'special exception'; it's just another application like the ten gazillion others we ship which don't have onerous trademark restrictions attached. I think it'd be appropriate for Mozilla to take a rather more liberal line with Thunderbird than it does with Firefox, if that's legally plausible. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 10:36 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: IMO, *no* - it's time to spread the world about Mozilla's trademark policy violating the prinicples of Free SW and Fedora's Mozilla being hostage of it. You mean, much like the Fedora and Red Hat trademark policies, which say almost the exact same things? You can't modify Fedora under F/OSS principles and still call it Fedora, just like you can't modify Firefox under F/OSS principles and still call it Firefox. Both of us do this to protect the good name of the project. We'd be in an extremely glass house-y situation if we tried to 'call out' Mozilla over this. It'd be ridiculous. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 12:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. To clarify a little further... The main purpose to get patches accepted by upstream before inclusion in Fedora is to make sure we are doing things the right way. For example, some patches may inadvertently break standards compliance, have ill side effects with JavaScript, may fix connecting to some mail servers at the expense of others, etc. Since the browser and mail client are an integral part of the daily user experience, we don't want to patch things which would have an unintended effect. Also, in the past, certain distributors have altered or broken standards compliance in their clients with patches, and in continuing to do so, they no longer ship with Mozilla trademarks. They have effectively created a different browser and mail client that behaves differently on some web sites or mail servers. Correctly following open standards is extremely important for the internet, and the last thing I want is to effectively create a fork in this way. We do have an agreement with Mozilla and as such, we are permitted to use the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks. But even if we did not or it were decided those marks were not important to us, I strongly feel that we should continue do things the right way and get patches accepted upstream first. I've asked for inclusion at upstream bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455, if you want to speed up the process you can reply there too. Looking at both the Red Hat and upstream bugs, The patch actually has already been accepted upstream already on 2010-04-01, just not in the same branch. There have been no complaints of regression in the bug however from trunk testers. As Firefox and Thunderbird are high usage and high visibility products which tend to get many bugs and patches, we limit consideration to certain classes of bugs with high impact. Based on the number of different users commenting and the number of duplicates of the bug, I think the impact of the bug was misjudged. Clearly this is leaving a bad taste in users mouths, and I think we have a responsibility to both Fedora and Mozilla to include a fix for it. However, I'd like to put this in updates-testing for several days to make sure it does not regress users of IMAP servers that do not suffer from this issue. Given the number of affected users, I think it would get high karma relatively quickly, so this is a case where I think karma automatism should be disabled. Let's see if anyone responds negatively in say 3 or 4 days before pushing this manually. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 15:45:53 -0700, Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote: We do have an agreement with Mozilla and as such, we are permitted to use the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks. But even if we did not or it were decided those marks were not important to us, I strongly feel that we should continue do things the right way and get patches accepted upstream first. And they should do things the right way as well. If they are bundling libraries, they should stop doing that. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Martin Stransky wrote: No, you get it wrong. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included in next security update. That's too late. It should have been applied weeks ago! That crash has been known for 7 weeks, a quickdirty fix which could have been applied at least temporarily has been proposed only days later. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, c.f. freedom 3 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You told us, you can't modify the sources and ship modified binaries = thunderbird and firefox are non-free, because of the trademarks Mozilla apply. = These packages should not be part of Fedora. +1 You are confusing their product with yours: Your product is broken and you are unable to maintain it because of legal reasons. +1 again. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Ralf Corsepius wrote: Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to void the benefits of open source. The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because they are effectively unmaintainable. * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages. /me ducks and hides for cover. No need to hide. I couldn't agree more, and in fact I've been arguing for this all this time. I really don't see why we're putting up with this kind of stupidity when we could just rebrand the packages like e.g. Debian is doing. Firefox, Thunderbird and xulrunner are also exempt from provenpager commits because of those trademark reasons. They're the ONLY packages for which an exemption has been granted. I really don't see why those packages deserve this kind of special treatment. They should be treated the same as all the other software in Fedora! If upstream insists on enforcing their trademarks in a fascist way, then the only option is to do what Debian did and rename the software. Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. See e.g. the Hunspell fiasco: * In February 2008, xulrunner was set to build against the system hunspell. * In May 2008, it was discovered that xulrunner is using an old private hunspell header even when using the system hunspell, which causes crashes due to an ABI mismatch. But since xulrunner was untouchable, hunspell was hacked instead to make it work. * In July 2008, it was noticed that the above hack made hunspell incompatible with upstream and all other distros, so it was reverted. The fix for xulrunner would have been trivial, but as xulrunner was still untouchable, it was reverted to use the private copy instead, a blatant violation of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. * Only in June 2009, xulrunner finally got fixed to use the system hunspell again. Another big issue is libpng: xulrunner is bundling a forked libpng for APNG support (which isn't even available for anything else to build against, so e.g. Konqueror can't support APNG). (APNG is a nonstandard extension to PNG which Mozilla is arbitrarily pushing instead of the existing MNG format which the PNG developers are supporting. They removed MNG support for very unconvincing reasons and then decided to reinvent the wheel to help fragment the web.) Debian is patching it to use the system libpng (which removes APNG support, so it's unlikely to pass trademark approval, ever), we aren't. This is a blatant violation of our own packaging guidelines. I'm really fed up of Firefox and Thunderbird continually getting special treatment. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
I wrote: Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. Another one: Thunderbird STILL bundles its own Gecko instead of using the system xulrunner, another blatant violation of our packaging guidelines. Nothing is done to fix this issue because upstream does not care and we can't change what they ship. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
I wrote: Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. PPS: And another one: xulrunner uses a bundled libffi. Another blatant violation of our packaging guidelines. This is fixed in Debian, but we aren't applying their patch. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 09:47:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. See e.g. the Hunspell fiasco: Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue? I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 09:47:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library need trademark approval. This is also just unacceptable. See e.g. the Hunspell fiasco: Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue? I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. By shipping software using names known to users coming from other OSes? Btw. the fedora trademark guidelines aren't less restrictive either. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 17:35:13 +0200, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: By shipping software using names known to users coming from other OSes? While in general it would be confusing if everything was renamed, I think the default web browser name is less of an issue since it is installed by default. People don't need to know the name to get it installed or run it. Besides iceweasel is also familiar to people. Btw. the fedora trademark guidelines aren't less restrictive either. The Fedora trademark doesn't cause problems within Fedora. We also even have things in place to make rebranding easier for downstream. The issue is that the Mozilla trademark rules are preventing us from packaging software using those trademarks in accordance with our rules. I think it would be better for the trademarks to go, rather than granting exceptions to the rules. We could even try coordinating names with Debian to reduce confusion. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes: The issue is that the Mozilla trademark rules are preventing us from packaging software using those trademarks in accordance with our rules. I think it would be better for the trademarks to go, rather than granting exceptions to the rules. Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM that this must be a problem for other distros too. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM that this must be a problem for other distros too. I though we did that several years ago. I wasn't a packager at that time, so I didn't follow what was happening closely. Well, if we say to them either you fix this licensing problem or your trademarks will disappear from Fedora, it might get their attention. Especially if we can get Debian and some other distros to tell them the same. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM that this must be a problem for other distros too. I though we did that several years ago. I wasn't a packager at that time, so I didn't follow what was happening closely. Well, if we say to them either you fix this licensing problem or your trademarks will disappear from Fedora, it might get their attention. Especially if we can get Debian and some other distros to tell them the same. Well, since Debian already has Iceweasel, Mozilla obviously don't care. IMO, we should go the Debian way. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 12:03:28 -0400, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM that this must be a problem for other distros too. I though we did that several years ago. I wasn't a packager at that time, so I didn't follow what was happening closely. Well, if we say to them either you fix this licensing problem or your trademarks will disappear from Fedora, it might get their attention. Especially if we can get Debian and some other distros to tell them the same. Well, since Debian already has Iceweasel, Mozilla obviously don't care. IMO, we should go the Debian way. Whoops, sorry for the PM Bruno and Kevin, i did just click on reply to all. Forgot to check for a cc. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 18:33:27 +0200, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Whoops, sorry for the PM Bruno and Kevin, i did just click on reply to all. Forgot to check for a cc. If I didn't want PM copies, I'd set mail-followup-to to not get them. I sometimes find it useful to get the extra copy. Also the default for the Fedora lists seems to be to try to detect duplicates and not send a copy through the list to them. (I have turned that off, so I get both copies.) And to keep things a bit on topic I added a question about Mozilla trademarks to the election questions. I will be interested in seeing what FESCO and Board candidates have to say on this issue. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 13:37:11 -0400, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. Yeah, but most computer users isn't relevant. The question is about what is relevant to Fedora users. Changing the name of Firefox will have little affect on them since it is installed as the default web browser. Being able to fix bugs in a timely manner on the other hand, is going to have a significant affect on them. Wait, let's not get silly here. Fedora has a great relationship with Mozilla. They're an amazing project filled with people that Get It, and we can work out issues with them in a cooperative way. Consider: * Mozilla is currently implementing unit tests *on Fedora* in addition to their long-standing tests on CentOS. This benefits both communities. See Armen's blog posts at http://armenzg.blogspot.com/2010/04/unit-tests-for-fedora-utont-project.html and http://armenzg.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-more-fedora-unit-test-suite-visible.html * Mozilla's brands are very well-known: They have 350+ million users across multiple platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux), far more than we have in Fedora. The ability to use these apps in Fedora helps to assures new users that switching costs will be low. * The trademark rules are there for a reason. Browser and e-mail clients are some of the most common attack points on desktop systems, and Mozilla needs to ensure that they don't get a black eye for some vulnerability introduced by a distro. And distros definitely introduce vulnerabilities: think about the Debian ssh-keygen patch fiasco as an example. We wouldn't do something so rash, of course -- or would we? The suggestion earlier in this thread that we patch TB and push directly to stable does not instill confidence. (We have the freedom to turn off the branding anytime and use the code however we want, but why give up the marketing value? and why give up the testing?) Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a simple matter of asking. -Chris -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a simple matter of asking. If it was so simple, why haven't we done it already? What about patches to use system libraries? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a simple matter of asking. If it was so simple, why haven't we done it already? We did, with Firefox and Pango. What about patches to use system libraries? I'm sure they'd love to receive 'em! Part of the problem here is that Mozilla's reference image for Linux is CentOS-based -- which means old library versions. Now that they're adding Fedora to their test farm, they're going to be getting better exposure to current versions. Sending patches to use current libraries upstream would be great. I'm sure Armen would love some help with nailing the remaining Fedora oranges -- see the tracking bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554934 Also, back to the original TB bug -- the reason this wasn't a top priority upstream was that it wasn't showing up in the Moz crashstats (they only had one report). We need to finish the work of tying our crash reports into their system, something they've been asking for since well before ABRT. -Chris -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/26/2010 01:41 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 04/26/2010 12:18 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: Let's not be brash. If we want to ship TB with one small patch, it's a simple matter of asking. If it was so simple, why haven't we done it already? We did, with Firefox and Pango. Well, I was referring to Thunderbird and the fix for the crash that is part of this thread obviously. What about patches to use system libraries? I'm sure they'd love to receive 'em! Aren't they aware of the existing patches already? Also, back to the original TB bug -- the reason this wasn't a top priority upstream was that it wasn't showing up in the Moz crashstats (they only had one report). We need to finish the work of tying our crash reports into their system, something they've been asking for since well before ABRT. Till then, how do we get them to prioritize downstream crashes? Alternatively are they willing to let Fedora patch it without requiring a rebranding? They could be be more flexible. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 01:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. Agreed a fortiori - in fact everyone I know chooses the browser and mail client by name and definitely not by function. If it was fedora branded then I'd guess a goodly chunk would just go and install the upstream anyway coz they would not know nor trust the browser called 'Fedora-Browser' or whatever. Those wishing to use firefox will use firefox - those wishing to use google-chrome will use it (in spite of chromium sounding similar by the by, it was far less functional). To be honest - i had never heard of iceweasel (yeh I get the name now) until this thread .. but I sure have heard of firefox/thunderbird. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Bruno Wolff III wrote: Isn't this a FESCO issue? Maybe it is time to reopen this issue? Knowing my fellow FESCo members, I don't think I'll get a majority to agree with me. :-( Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Bruno Wolff III wrote: We could even try coordinating names with Debian to reduce confusion. Yes, definitely. We should ask Debian about using the ice* names they're using, and also share patches with them. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Tom Lane wrote: Wouldn't it be sensible to approach the Mozilla folk about getting them to relax their requirements so that sane packaging is possible? ISTM that this must be a problem for other distros too. We have tried, Debian has tried, other distros have tried, Mozilla just said no. The problem is that, unlike most other upstreams, Mozilla does not see even a coalition of all GNU/Linux distros as an almighty power you have to give its way, but only as a secondary platform next to Window$ from whose users they get millions of downloads. So they feel they're in the position of power and get to dictate to us what we have to do. They also care very little about the needs of distros and it took years for some of the system libs to get used rather than bundled, for things like system icons getting adopted etc. They still suck in the system integration domain in many ways, e.g. openSUSE's KDE integration patches have yet to be merged, and of course our maintainers refuse to merge openSUSE's patches due to the usual trademark concerns (which openSUSE doesn't seem to be concerned about, they just ship those patches in branded packages, so either Mozilla approved them, which means we can ship them too, or they just didn't care, so why should we?). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: They also care very little about the needs of distros and it took years for some of the system libs to get used rather than bundled, for things like system icons getting adopted etc. They still suck in the system integration domain in many ways, e.g. openSUSE's KDE integration patches have yet to be merged, and of course our maintainers refuse to merge openSUSE's patches due to the usual trademark concerns (which openSUSE doesn't seem to be concerned about, they just ship those patches in branded packages, so either Mozilla approved them, which means we can ship them too, or they just didn't care, so why should we?). What really strikes me here is that we're not even talking about adding random downstream patches, but an upstream one. -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 06:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Can someone explain why the fedora version has a bug which upstream version does not ? Or am I missing something ? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Chris Tyler wrote: On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 00:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: What about patches to use system libraries? I'm sure they'd love to receive 'em! http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/xulrunner/1.9.2.3-2/debian-hacks/0011-Disable-APNG-support-when-system-libpng-doesn-t-supp.patch http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/xulrunner/1.9.2.3-2/debian-hacks/0039-Allow-to-build-against-system-libffi.patch Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Mail Lists wrote: Can someone explain why the fedora version has a bug which upstream version does not ? Or am I missing something ? The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough to release a fixed version in a timely manner. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough to release a fixed version in a timely manner. OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ... can disconnect the network all i want .. no crash. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. I've asked for inclusion at upstream bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455, if you want to speed up the process you can reply there too. ma. On 04/22/2010 08:39 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi, I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug. This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird koji build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their problems as well. The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes. However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable? fs [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579023 [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455 [3] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2092397 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to void the benefits of open source. The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because they are effectively unmaintainable. * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages. /me ducks and hides for cover. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to void the benefits of open source. The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because they are effectively unmaintainable. * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages. /me ducks and hides for cover. No, you get it wrong. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included in next security update. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 12:33 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. I've asked for inclusion at upstream bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455, if you want to speed up the process you can reply there too. What is the exact definition of really critical issues here. A frequent crash seems a critical issue to me. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 09:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 04/23/2010 12:33 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. I've asked for inclusion at upstream bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455, if you want to speed up the process you can reply there too. What is the exact definition of really critical issues here. A frequent crash seems a critical issue to me. - 0day vulnerabilities - critical crashes (like app fails to start for *everyone*, app crashes for *everyone* in five minutes after start) - fedora customization (build fixes) ma. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 01:12 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: What is the exact definition of really critical issues here. A frequent crash seems a critical issue to me. - 0day vulnerabilities - critical crashes (like app fails to start for *everyone*, app crashes for *everyone* in five minutes after start) - fedora customization (build fixes) It is really annoying that Mozilla is restricting fixes for fairly serious issues via their trademark guidelines. Their effort to protect their brand has to balanced against downstream needs. It is unacceptable for them to tie down our hands if they are not going to do a release soon. It is very much possible that a bug might affect a particular distribution only (even without patches) because of the rest of the stack it is build against and Mozilla has to be responsive to all that. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to void the benefits of open source. The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because they are effectively unmaintainable. * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages. /me ducks and hides for cover. No, you get it wrong. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included in next security update. ...*may be included* in next security update. Well, Ralf is right. That situation is just sick. To have a patch that fixes a crashing application but it can't be applied, because of Trademark/Branding problems. And even worse, that the app has to crash for *everyone* to get it faster. But i guess it's better i shut up, since i don't use Mozilla products. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Friday 23 of April 2010 09:03:37 Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. just curious: is it possible to ship snapshots or trademarks does not allow this too? I've asked for inclusion at upstream bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455, if you want to speed up the process you can reply there too. ma. On 04/22/2010 08:39 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi, I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug. This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird koji build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their problems as well. The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes. However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable? fs [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579023 [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550455 [3] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2092397 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 11:11 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote: On Friday 23 of April 2010 09:03:37 Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. just curious: is it possible to ship snapshots or trademarks does not allow this too? We can ship anything as an unbranded package. We do so in rawhide for pre-released packages like firefox/thunderbird betas. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/23/2010 09:24 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 04/23/2010 09:03 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi, we're patching mozilla packages only for really critical issues because of mozilla trademarks. We can't put any patch we want to the mozilla package and ship it as 'Firefox' or 'Thunderbird'. Thanks for providing evidence of how trademarks are being applied to void the benefits of open source. The obvious logical consequences of what you say would be * either to remove the packages you are referring to from Fedora because they are effectively unmaintainable. * or to remove the trademarks and re-brand the packages. /me ducks and hides for cover. No, you get it wrong. Well, c.f. freedom 3 on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You told us, you can't modify the sources and ship modified binaries = thunderbird and firefox are non-free, because of the trademarks Mozilla apply. = These packages should not be part of Fedora. It's about cooperation, we work with upstream to release one valid product. See the upstream bug, the fix may be included in next security update. You are confusing their product with yours: Your product is broken and you are unable to maintain it because of legal reasons. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/22/2010 02:39 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug. This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird koji build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their problems as well. The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes. However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable? +1! This bug is brutal. TB crashes several times a day for me. - Mike -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Felix Schwarz felix.schw...@oss.schwarz.eu wrote: I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug. This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird koji build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their problems as well. The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes. And probably a lot of people aren't. However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable? Why isn't Mozilla releasing a new version that contains the fix? And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly to stable. -- Jeff Ollie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Jeffrey Ollie said the following on 04/22/2010 01:27 PM Pacific Time: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Felix Schwarz felix.schw...@oss.schwarz.eu wrote: I'm concerned about bz 579023 [1] which is a Thunderbird crasher bug. This bug was fixed upstream [2] for about 3-4 weeks. I ran a thunderbird koji build version [3] with an adapted version of that patch since then without any problems. Other users confirmed that this patch fixes their problems as well. The Fedora bug has a number of duplicates with quite some number of cc'd users so I guess a lot of people experiencing these crashes. And probably a lot of people aren't. That's rather dismissive considering the number of bug reports: http://bit.ly/9uUdGx It got so bad for me that I went back to the GA version for Fedora 12. However it is still not fixed in Thunderbird F-12 CVS. Can you please push the fix to CVS and push builds to testing/stable? Why isn't Mozilla releasing a new version that contains the fix? And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly to stable. An unofficial patched version would be better than the current situation. John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/22/2010 08:30 PM, John Poelstra wrote: An unofficial patched version would be better than the current situation. John FWIW - I use the nightly builds from mozilla.org .. no crashes at all with 3.1 nightly - be aware if you use enigmail, that versions after the 4/05 build do not work (so far as of 4/22). You might want to try an upstream build of 3.0.x see if it fares better for you. Also, 64 bit firefox/thunderbird may not work properly - I have found running the 32 bit version to be less problematic. YMMV gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
Jeffrey Ollie wrote: Why isn't Mozilla releasing a new version that contains the fix? I don't know, but in the absence of a new release, the maintainer is supposed to backport the fix. 3-4 weeks or more is not a nice response time. And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly to stable. Why not, if it contains an important fix? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 03:18 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly to stable. Why not, if it contains an important fix? Because if we don't test the updated package we don't know: a) does it actually fix the bug? b) does it break anything else? Just because an update 'contains an important fix' doesn't mean it's fine to release it without testing. However, I certainly agree this should be fixed ASAP, and saying 'well it doesn't crash for EVERYONE' and 'upstream should fix it instead' are pretty weak excuses. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On Apr 22, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 03:18 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: And even if the Fedora Thunderbird maintainer decides to push a patched package to F-12, there's no way it should be pushed directly to stable. Why not, if it contains an important fix? Because if we don't test the updated package we don't know: a) does it actually fix the bug? b) does it break anything else? Just because an update 'contains an important fix' doesn't mean it's fine to release it without testing. I'll test it. I don't need it in stable right away... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
