On 11/13/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Brockway wrote: > > It's normal for the Debian security team to backport changes into the > > existing code base in Debian. Thus I expect the Firefox 1.04 to be the > > vanilla source 1.04 plus backported security fixes. This is a _good_ > > thing as it means less changes on an update. This is one of the > > strengths of the Debian approach. > > Perhaps, but it's also confusing to anyone coming to Debian from another > Linux distro. Let's just hope they *properly* update the user agent > string.. > > I say, that approach is fine, but why not show the right freakin version > number? Even if they didn't have to backport, patching would be simpler > than starting over from scratch anyway. Heck the next version of > Firefox will do it that way anyway (assuming one is using a version > downloaded from Mozilla, that is).
There's actually a very good reason. If the version number is 1.0.4-[patchlevel], it's reasonable to assume that the extensions and plugins API/ABI hasn't changed. I don't recall there being a change between 1.0.4 and 1.0.7, but there *might* have been. Also, sarge is getting the security patches, not necessarily all of the feature patches. Imagine the nightmare of trying to figure out via the Mozilla forums why feature X doesn't work in your installation of 1.0.7 when what you really have is 1.0.4+backported security fixes from .5, .6, and .7. In short, the patched version of Firefox in sarge is *not* 1.0.7, so calling it 1.0.7 would be a mistake. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
