On 09/08/2010 07:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 03:22:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
from now, and as far as I know neither the security team nor the
stable release managers usually accept that kind of changes in
stable. If they say they'll be happy to accept
On 09/15/2010 08:23 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I think it's easy to see if we will have to accept a new major release of
Chromium in Squeeze (after its release): Would you be able to backport any
fix from 6.x to 3.x? If they keep releasing every 3 months, you'll have to
deal with a more distant
On 09/08/2010 07:08 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 03:22:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
from now, and as far as I know neither the security team nor the
stable release managers usually accept that kind of changes in
stable. If they say they'll be happy to accept
On 09/14/2010 05:56 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
Besides, Giuseppe said that Chromium 5.x wasn't an option for Squeeze and
uploaded Chromium 6.x. Why this won't happen again during the freeze? or
worst, during Squeeze's lifetime?
As I wrote many times, no one can say if this will happen again.
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 07:08:29PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
The plan for Chromium is to update it with the Chromium stable releases, i.e.
the same way Xulrunner has been updated during the supported life time of
xulrunner 1.9.0. Once these updates have stopped, the plan is apply
I've been following the chromium-browser saga a bit, who has ended up
with the removal of the package from testing [1,2]. While I'm a
chromium-browser user myself, and hence I'm saddened of seeing it go,
I'm not here to question the choice as I'm sure it's been made as the
right one and that it
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:48:49PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[3] A question you might have at this point is: why you bother about
Chromium and not other packages?. Well, I do bother about all
packages and I'm just trying to anticipate questions I'll might be
asked as soon as
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:48:49PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[3] A question you might have at this point is: why you bother about
Chromium and not other packages?. Well, I do bother about all
packages and I'm just
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 13:48:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've been following the chromium-browser saga a bit, who has ended up
with the removal of the package from testing [1,2]. While I'm a
chromium-browser user myself, and hence I'm saddened of seeing it go,
I'm not here to
On 09/08/2010 03:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
I don't have any reason to
believe the new version won't have the same problem 2 months (or a year)
from now
Note that this isn't a chromium specific issue, please see the opened
issues in webkit:
On 09/08/2010 03:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
and as far as I know neither the security team nor the stable
release managers usually accept that kind of changes in stable. If they
say they'll be happy to accept random chromium code dumps in released
squeeze, then I guess we can let it back
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:48:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've been following the chromium-browser saga a bit, who has ended up
with the removal of the package from testing [1,2]. While I'm a
chromium-browser user myself, and hence I'm saddened of seeing it go,
I'm not here to question the
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:58:17 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
On 09/08/2010 03:22 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
I don't have any reason to
believe the new version won't have the same problem 2 months (or a year)
from now
Note that this isn't a chromium specific issue, please see the opened
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:23:59 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
On 09/08/2010 04:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
That isn't a very good list wrt to squeeze's webkit since that includes
the multitude of lenny issues.
That was the point, the number of webkit opened issues in lenny.
That isn't
On 2010-09-08 16:10 +0200, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:48:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've been following the chromium-browser saga a bit, who has ended up
with the removal of the package from testing [1,2]. While I'm a
chromium-browser user myself, and hence I'm
On 09/08/2010 04:26 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
That isn't really a fair comparison. I campaigned (unsuccessfully) to
keep webkit out of lenny at the time since it was so
experimental/unsupportable. Thus I had no interest in supporting
that. However, I'm planning to help support webkit in
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:55:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2010-09-08 16:10 +0200, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:48:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've been following the chromium-browser saga a bit, who has ended up
with the removal of the package from testing [1,2].
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:02:33 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
On 09/08/2010 04:26 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
That isn't really a fair comparison. I campaigned (unsuccessfully) to
keep webkit out of lenny at the time since it was so
experimental/unsupportable. Thus I had no interest in
On 09/08/2010 05:04 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think it is indeed supportable now for squeeze.
What was changed from lenny to now?
Cheers,
Giuseppe.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2010-09-08 16:10 +0200, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think that this need is justification to declare backports officially
supported by the debian project. Thus when asked this question, you
can point to the fact that chromium
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:09:32 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
On 09/08/2010 05:04 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think it is indeed supportable now for squeeze.
What was changed from lenny to now?
The are now many very usable webkit frontends, which I can use on a
daily basis, so I now have
Le mercredi 08 septembre 2010 à 17:09 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano a écrit :
On 09/08/2010 05:04 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think it is indeed supportable now for squeeze.
What was changed from lenny to now?
What has changed is that webkit is widely deployed inside and outside
Debian, and
Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think that this need is justification to declare backports officially
supported by the debian project. Thus when asked this question, you
can point to the fact that chromium is indeed supported on stable, just
via a different model than folks are used to.
Do you
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 05:17:55PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 08 septembre 2010 à 17:09 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano a écrit :
On 09/08/2010 05:04 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think it is indeed supportable now for squeeze.
What was changed from lenny to now?
What has
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:14:33AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
[2] Chromium or iceweasel; take your pick since backports is being
suggested as a delivery mechanism for both.
There is a difference with Iceweasel, though, in that squeeze will ship
with Iceweasel.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:14:33 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Gilbert wrote:
I think that this need is justification to declare backports officially
supported by the debian project. Thus when asked this question, you
can point to the fact that chromium is indeed supported on stable, just
On 09/08/2010 05:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I now have interest in using webkit itself, and thus
have interest in closing security issues; whereas with lenny there is
no usable frontend, and thus no reason for anyone to be interested in
security support.
I think it is more honest to say
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:42:37 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
On 09/08/2010 05:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
I now have interest in using webkit itself, and thus
have interest in closing security issues; whereas with lenny there is
no usable frontend, and thus no reason for anyone to be
Michael Gilbert wrote:
A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a
lot of this concern.
Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the installer
can do is eliminate one or two of the three or four things users must
do to use it. All my comments about user
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Gilbert wrote:
A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a
lot of this concern.
Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the installer
can do is eliminate one or two of the three or
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:19:40 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Gilbert wrote:
A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a
lot of this concern.
Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the installer
can do is eliminate one or two of the three or four
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 03:22:29PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
from now, and as far as I know neither the security team nor the stable
release managers usually accept that kind of changes in stable. If they
say they'll be happy to accept random chromium code dumps in released
squeeze,
The
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:57:28 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:19:40 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Gilbert wrote:
A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a
lot of this concern.
Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:15:26 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
As for the need for pinning, that can be solved by judiciously choosing
package names. The current instructions say to append '~bpo' to all
packages, which makes backport versions older than stable versions. For
chromium and
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:30:21 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:15:26 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
As for the need for pinning, that can be solved by judiciously choosing
package names. The current instructions say to append '~bpo' to all
packages, which makes
35 matches
Mail list logo
