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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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,
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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
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.
--
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
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
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'.
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,
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'.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
99 matches
Mail list logo
