On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 03:22:53PM +0200, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > This all just seem arguments to put the (new) mozilla browsers into > the volatile archive. It definately is not what I thought of as > something I'd expect for the stable archive. If we choose stable we > do so with a reason and we know what we choose. If we add volatile > we also know what we're doing.
ACK. > The problem is much harder when we can't actually have the backports. > In my opinion it's *maybe* better to just leave the browsers in > stable as they are and make an announcement to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or so that their security is sub-optimal or non-existing and if they > want they can use the new packages from volatile. I would go one step further and remove vulnerable mozilla software from stable, or put up dummy packages pointing people to volatile in the security archive. I don't like the idea of shipping vulnerable software and not taking measures to prevent that software from being installed on a system with stable+security. We cannot expect our users to read our announcements. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
