Hi,
[personal opinion]
On 30 March 2015 at 16:14, Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@debian.org wrote:
Squeeze LTS misses a security-supported browser, so it's
usefulness as a desktop environment is fairly limited. Since iceweasel
is now a standalone package (and doesn't carry lots of xulrunner
reverse
On Apr 7, 2015 5:47 PM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 17:24 +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hi,
[personal opinion]
On 30 March 2015 at 16:14, Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@debian.org wrote:
Squeeze LTS misses a security-supported browser, so it's
Hi,
On Wed, 01 Apr 2015, Jeremy Davis wrote:
My suspicion is that gaining further support may be easier if you do a
bit of a rally call now (rather than waiting until Wheezy EOL). I think
it's worth letting people know that Wheezy-LTS is a realistic
possibility but needs more support
I have googled high and low and got no recent comment/thoughts/etc on
whether or not there is even consideration of a Wheezy LTS.
If you would think about the idea of LTS you woul not have to think about
this google thingy.
I understand that it would be dependant on the success (or not) of
On 30/03/2015, Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@debian.org wrote:
Squeeze LTS misses a security-supported browser
A number of web browsers that are present in Debian 6, are completely
unsupported.
These include, but, are not limited to, Arora, Rekonq, etc.
Each of those has its particular advantages,
Hi,
I have googled high and low and got no recent comment/thoughts/etc on
whether or not there is even consideration of a Wheezy LTS.
I understand that it would be dependant on the success (or not) of
Squeeze-LTS but I could not find any (even preliminary) evaluation on
that. TBH I couldn't even
