Hi Michael, Op 05-02-15 om 02:23 schreef Michael Gilbert: > 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.
I mean the normal packagers of gcc and make. >> 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 it would be good to have one supported version, what can be backported to oldstable. It's more work, but not double when somebody else does the build environment etc. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- 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/mav9v8$kds$1...@ger.gmane.org
