On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: >> The backports team expects backporters to have demonstrated competence >> with the packages that they're planning to upload. Anyone considering >> this should first get involved with the package maintenance teams >> first and help with a few unstable uploads. > > I understand. Good thing. But maybe the normal packagers could think > about a backport.
For chromium, that's me, but it's not an interest of mine. If it's going to happen, it will require a motivated volunteer with the itch to do the work. > In the past, Iceweasel and Icedove never had a year security support > after a new release. Maybe there where other reasons to stop the > support, but I think this should be seen as a problem/bug. It's a lot of work maintaining web browsers. When the next stable release comes out, that work doubles, so it is far more practical only to support the newer one. > In my opinion Iceweasel, Chromium, etc, don't belong in "main", they > belong in "backports". Realize that backports is now enabled by default > in Jessie. That doesn't really change anything. The same build environment issues leading to the -security decision for chromium would lead to the exact same conclusion in -backports. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MMaROWK=50of2-gxr40h5+nokuchtzgwuovnsp4p9a...@mail.gmail.com
