On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 09:25 +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 02:35:19PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 04:57:53PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] > > > On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 22:27 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:, > > > > I'd like to push iceowl 1.0~b1+dfsg2-2.squeeze1 to squeeze proposed > > > > updates. It contains the same updates as current icedove. > > > > > > Presumably this now requires a further update, in light of at least > > > MFSA2011-12? > > > > Indeed. I've added all the patches that got added to xulrunner and > > icedove recently (attached). > > Ping. Can this be pushed to s-p-u?
I hadn't realised the above was as long ago as it was; apologies for that. However, the main reason I'd left it flagged as waiting was the hope of a response to... > > > I do note that the discussion before the release about updating iceowl > > > in stable very much implied that security updates would be pushed via > > > the security archive, albeit not as the security team's top priority. > > > > The update in stable was necessary to move iceowl to the same codebase > > as icedove/xulrunner making it possible to reuse the patches. I'm > > putting the security team on cc: so we can figure out how to best get > > the updated iceowl versions into stable. ... this. There doesn't appear to have been any follow-up from the security team on the bug; has there been any discussion elsewhere? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1307559361.14057.12.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
