On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 01:17:36PM -, John Dong wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to do it properly too -- where is the bzr branch for
Firefox as of hardy-security? Somehow I couldn't find one that matches
up on the firefox or xulrunner product pages?
Please check with fta on irc to sort out what to
Yeah, I'd like to do it properly too -- where is the bzr branch for
Firefox as of hardy-security? Somehow I couldn't find one that matches
up on the firefox or xulrunner product pages?
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274187
You
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:21:02PM -, John Dong wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 02:41:54PM -, John Dong wrote:
I still intend on updating Firefox 3.0 in gutsy-backports and it'd be
great to be able to work
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 02:41:54PM -, John Dong wrote:
I still intend on updating Firefox 3.0 in gutsy-backports and it'd be
great to be able to work with Mozilla Team to make newer Firefox
releases available in the backports pocket. I think it's fairly well
understood that Backports is
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 02:41:54PM -, John Dong wrote:
I still intend on updating Firefox 3.0 in gutsy-backports and it'd be
great to be able to work with Mozilla Team to make newer Firefox
releases available in
Scott, thanks. Especially the argument that we can remove packages from
-backports is a good one given the timing of this. Also since the
archive is closed now, lets look for backports.
FWIW, we should surely work on our MOTU policies to make clear what we
want, how we want it and how we can do
btw, i dont think we should remove the backport from gutsy. remoiving a
buggy package while a even buggier one is still in in release doesnt
make much sense.
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274187
You received this bug notification
Agreed. There's nothing I can do to prevent unsupportable packages being
uploaded before FF. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
In Gutsy we have a firefox-3.0 package in the release pocket that is
obsolete, vulnerable, and cannot be removed. I've spoken to jdong about
the one in
I still intend on updating Firefox 3.0 in gutsy-backports and it'd be
great to be able to work with Mozilla Team to make newer Firefox
releases available in the backports pocket. I think it's fairly well
understood that Backports is maintained on a best-effort basis and
that's still frankly a lot
No, our support promise is like what i proposed. I think thats good enough
because users that go for 3.1 in intrepid are 99.9% users that will go for
jaunty once that is released.
Remember that such kind of guarantee is not required (read: enforced) for any
universe package atm.
Otherwise,
I don't think 6 months of support is sufficient. -1 from me.
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274187
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing
hm... we're rapidly approaching FinalFreeze, so I guess we should either
come to a conclusion really soon now, or have already passed the point,
and backports would be a more practical approach.
As far as I've read it, the main point of objection is an uncertain
duration of support from mozilla
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:26:24PM -, StefanPotyra wrote:
Well, the problem in regards to support here seems to be that only the
mozilla team *can* in fact provide fixes due to trademark restrictions,
which is not true for other packages. Or are we allowed by mozilla to
upload unapproved
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:47:22PM -, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't think 6 months of support is sufficient. -1 from me.
OK, next cycle we should then go through the archive and drop
everything that doesnt have a firm security support commitment?
Again, binding a feature freeze exception
Well, the problem in regards to support here seems to be that only the
mozilla team *can* in fact provide fixes due to trademark restrictions,
which is not true for other packages. Or are we allowed by mozilla to
upload unapproved fixes to stable releases?
Also, I'm curious: Do you estimate it
Speaking with motu-sru hat on, I think no-one except guys from
mozillateam is able to tell if a SRU proposal is valid or not, new
bugfix releases are usually way too complex to weight regression
potential in a sane way. This is probably one of the reasons Firefox
falls under micro-release
Given the current state of the Gutsy firefox-3.0 package I am against this
unless we have some firm commitments.
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274187
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Alexander, thanks, for the insight, seems sane, and I believe you'll
know best what firefox users might want in regards to the upgrade path.
Scott: good point. Subscribed [EMAIL PROTECTED]: what's your opinion?
Finally, this is a tough decision for me. Personally, I think for
intrepid's release
Why would updates stop after 6 months? You'll be doing the same thing
for Jaunty after that anyway... If they will stop after 6 months, should
it perhaps be timebombed? Software being unsupportable is also usually a
good reason for not releasing with it.
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1
@norsetto: there are pros and cons of both ways of doing things. We
decided to use this scheme in gutsy - after careful thoughts and even
after trying the -trunk/-snapshot thing. There are pros and cons for bot
approaches, but it is well understood that we can only provide a
seemless and pleasent
I'm catching up on my bugmail.
I think that an essential pre-requisite to approving this is a commitment
from Canonical to provide security support for it. This is not a package
MOTU can support.
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
ff2 is indeed to be removed.
This firefox-3.0 / firefox-3.1 is similar to gcc-3.3 / gcc-4.1 / gcc-4.2
/ gcc-4.3.The idea is to be able to install one, or the other, or both,
depending on the user requirements. In the past, we had firefox-trunk
which was for VCS snapshots but here, it's not about
i can confirm that firefox-2 will be removed in this cycle. so we could
understand this as a deal :).
@firefox-next: people that install firefox-3.1 now, shouldnt end up
using firefox-4.0 once that is -next. the versioning is a good
procedure and allows users to decide explicitly what they want.
The whole logic would be to make it (at least somewhat) clear from the very
name that this is a development version. I just would like to avoid people
using it instead of the regular version expecting it to be stable and mature.
I don't see it as a problem having this being carried from series
This is clearly identified both in the desktop launcher and in the Help / About
dialog.
3.1 is called Shiretoko (3.0 was called Granparadiso) and the icon is a blue
planet (not the orange and blue firefox).
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
Ok, fair enough. I must admit that I wouldn't know about the code names,
but assume that the logo be sufficient to serve the purpose (probably
combined with a package description stating that it's not the stable
version).
Out of interest: How do you plan the transition for jaunty? Drop the ff3
Hi,
hm... that way, we'd end up having ff2, ff3 and ff3.1 in the archives
for intrepid?
In regards to naming, I've got a suggestion:
How about having one firefox-next package (or firefox-svn or similar), which
could generally serve to ship the next upcoming version?
Also, I'd like to hear from
Aren't we removing ff2 from the archive? Anyway, I quite like Stefan's
idea however I would propose a name which gives more the idea that this
is a development version. Perhaps firefox-unstable, or firefox-snapshot
(like for newest gcc, emacs etc.)?
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: Triaged =
subscribed motu-release. setting to triaged to indicate that everything
is available.
** Changed in: ubuntu
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: New = Triaged
--
FFe - firefox 3.1 and xulrunner 1.9.1 for intrepid/universe
I will add a few things:
7. I told firefox-3.1 to use a copy of the firefox (3.0) user profile (created
at the first run) so the risk of breaking the default firefox is null. We did
the same last year with firefox-3.0 when firefox 2 was still the default. The
advantage is that both versions of
30 matches
Mail list logo
