On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 09:41:31PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:39:55PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 02:41:21PM +0200, Marc Brockschmidt wrote: > > > Heya, > > > > > > As announced on dda [RT1], we want to get an impression when releasing > > > Squeeze is feasible. We have proposed a (quite ambitious) freeze in > > > December > > > 2009, and some developers have noted that their planned changes wouldn't > > > be > > > possible in this time frame. So, to find out when releasing would work for > > > most people, it would be great if you could answer the following > > > questions: > > > > > > > > * Which major upstream releases of Mozilla/Xulrunner-based software are > > > expected in the next two years? Which of those are material for Debian > > > stable, which might be a bit flaky? > > > > firefox 3.6 is currently scheduled for december 2009; i think it would > > be worthwhile to get that in before freeze even if its not yet final > > at that point; this would help to get a bit longer upstream security > > support and would make debian more modern. Also it will probably get > > to final during freeze. > > > > Mozilla does not have any 2 years plans that one could rely on. Last I > > know is the general goal to target a ~9 month cycle, but with usual > > approach to release when ready (so 3.5 took 12 month). > > And security support is dropped 6 months after that for the previous > release. I.e. Firefox 3.0 security support will be dropped in 4 months.
(leaving the rest of the message for security-team (now CCed)' eyes) Rough estimates have been published for the next Firefox releases, namely 3.6, 3.7 and 4.0. The roadmap is as follows: 3.6 - Q3/Q4 2009 3.7 - Q1/Q2 2010 4.0 - Q3/Q4 2010 What this means is that upstream wants a 6 months release cycle, which means, with 6 months support for previous releases after a new one, that a given release (branch) will only be supported one year. Cheers, Mike > Firefox is also not the only mozilla product we have, and only > considering Firefox may be biaised. > > Thunderbird 3.0 might be expected somewhen soonish in the next few > months, as well as Seamonkey 2.0. They will both be based on Gecko > 1.9.1, which is the version of Gecko that Firefox 3.5 uses. > > Getting all these in sync means we share the same codebase in all > Mozilla products, which, despite upstream support being dropped earlier > may substantially help the security team. > > Firefox 3.6, on the other hand, relies on Gecko 1.9.2. > > I, for one, don't want to maintain 2 gecko codebases in the same > distribution much longer. But people are free to join the mozilla team > and help out. > > > > * How much time do you usually need from a new upstream release to a > > > stable Debian package in unstable? > > > > > > * How many "big" transitions will the upcoming changes cause? When should > > > those > > > happen? Can we do something to make them easier? > > Every new gecko, which we mainly have in xulrunner nowadays, needs some > work, though I do hope 3.6 will require less work than 3.5 has and will. > > ATM, 3.5 is definitely not release-ready, and a lot of work remains to > be done: > - Build and test rdeps against newer version (applications such as > epiphany[1], and plugins) > - Patch liboggplay, liboggz, libvorbis, libtheora, etc. with the > necessary patches, and make sure it doesn't break other packages. > - Build xulrunner against these patched libraries instead of the bundled > oned as currently is the case. > > Once we're done with this, the same will have to done again for 3.6. As > the whole depends on more than myself alone, it's hard to give an > evaluation on how long these transition will take. I'm not even able to > say how long it will take me to get 3.5 itself in shape. > > Cheers, > > Mike > > 1. Note that epiphany may be totally dropping gecko support in the near > future (and I hear yelp and devhelp should, too), but that still leaves > us with at least galeon and kazehakase. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
