Paul, The point is that these security updates /are/ added upstream, they /are /regularly packaged in Debian, and it wouldn’t be any harder to support them in Debian stable than security updates for any other browser. Your original email indicated that none of these three things were true.
Beyond that, you might find the following an interesting read (fairly long, but the point is that, as per the Chromium maintainer, Qt WebEngine has better coverage in Debian stable than Chromium does): https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020387#255[1] Privacy Browser is not going to ship in Bookworm, but it will ship in Bookworm+1. Part of the reason why I have become one of the Qt maintainers is so that it receives proper security support in stable (and oldstable as much as possible, although there probably isn’t any web browser that currently has good security coverage in oldstable). Soren On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 11:34:58 AM MST Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > Hi all! > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:41:55PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > Paul, > > > > I /am/ one of the Debian Qt WebEngine maintainers, and I also submit code > > to the upstream Qt project. > > > > The Salsa link you included appears to be a bit misinformed about security > > support for Qt WebEngine in Debian. For more accurate information, I > > would > > point you to this link: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1032794 > > Please note that this request is for a not-yet-released Debian version. > > I am not sure the Release team will agree to have such updates in stable. > Although, I would be happy to discuss this with them. > > -- > Dmitry Shachnev -- Soren Stoutner so...@stoutner.com -------- [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020387#255
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
