Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

* Colin Watson , 2016-03-22, 00:58: [1]. There's probably some method that puts way less load on the BTS server available for DDs. https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Access documents rsync access for this kind of thing. Or you could mine debian-bugs-dist archives:

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:51:20AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > [1]. There's probably some method that puts way less load on the BTS server > available for DDs. https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Access documents rsync access for this kind of thing. -- Colin Watson

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:05:30PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > (I would be interested to know what fraction of unstable users also > have experimental enabled as a source.  Does popcon report which suites > are enabled in APT sources, and if not could that be added? No, it doesn't. But what

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 21:18 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04:32PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > it has an artificial RC bug to stop it from entering testing, because > > the non-ESR releases aren't supportable in stable. > An artificial bug to keep something out

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 12:04:32PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > it has an artificial RC bug to stop it from entering testing, because > the non-ESR releases aren't supportable in stable. An artificial bug to keep something out of testing is a little bit strange. Isn't this why we have the

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 05:38:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > James McCoy wrote: > > > > Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned > > > > dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides. > > > [...] > > > > > > Yes we do, since dpkg 1.18. > > > Yet others

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 20:31:13 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned > > dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides. > Yes we do, since dpkg 1.18. Actually since

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > Ah. So I assume that packages using versioned Provides probably > shouldn't get uploaded to the archive until that happens? There are already packages in the archive using versioned Provides: libjpeg62, python cffi packages, several php

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

James McCoy wrote: > On Mar 20, 2016 4:31 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages dependin

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Mar 20, 2016 4:31 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > > > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but > > not firefox/firefox-esr"): > > > > > > Now, one thing which seems like it _co

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

Ian Jackson wrote: > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but > not firefox/firefox-esr"): > > Now, one thing which seems like it _could_ fix this without requiring a > > MBF would be for firefox and firefox-esr to acquire 'Provides

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr"): > Now, one thing which seems like it _could_ fix this without requiring a > MBF would be for firefox and firefox-esr to acquire 'Provides: > iceweasel'. That seems like a m

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On 2016-03-20 at 06:43, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Josh Triplett , 2016-03-18, 15:06: >> Firefox addon packages (xul-ext-*) typically have a Depends on >> iceweasel, sometimes with alternatives for icedove or other >> supported packages that can use the addon. With the switch

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 at 11:43:54 +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Also, why there are two firefox* packages, and what's the difference between > them? (They have identical descriptions...) As far as I understand it (not a Mozilla maintainer): firefox-esr is the Extended Support Release version

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

Can someone explain why we are bringing Firefox back? Are we going to rename it again if^Wwhen Mozilla stops liking us? Also, why there are two firefox* packages, and what's the difference between them? (They have identical descriptions...) * Josh Triplett ,

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

David Prévot: > Le 18/03/2016 18:06, Josh Triplett a écrit : > >> I would suggest that Firefox addon packages should depend on "firefox | >> firefox-esr" > > Most of those packages are mozilla-devscripts for the build and just > need to be rebuilt to get fixed. Even if our infrastructure has all

Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

Le 18/03/2016 18:06, Josh Triplett a écrit : > I would suggest that Firefox addon packages should depend on "firefox | > firefox-esr" Most of those packages are mozilla-devscripts for the build and just need to be rebuilt to get fixed. Even if our infrastructure has all the needed tools to

Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr

Firefox addon packages (xul-ext-*) typically have a Depends on iceweasel, sometimes with alternatives for icedove or other supported packages that can use the addon. With the switch to firefox and firefox-esr, iceweasel has become a transitional package depending on firefox-esr. The dependencies