Bug#831447: firefox-branding-iceweasel 0.4.0 MIGRATED to testing
On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 16:56 +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> >Who are these "quite a few users"? Where are they being confused?
>
>
> because they used to have an iceweasel package, and now they have a firefox instead
> (different desktop file, different branding)
You're answering a different question, namely "why". I was asking for
some information / pointers as to how you know they're being confused.
Presumably there are several mailing list posts, IRC conversations, etc.
> >> With this in stable, we can say to anyone who wants to keep Iceweasel:
> >> "Run this command:
> >> sudo apt-get install xul-ext-iceweasel-branding"
> >>
> >> Without bothering about backports.
> >
> >I understand the idea. I'm just not sure why this package is so special
> >that they shouldn't "bother with backports".
>
>
> the change iceweasel/firefox is in proposed-updates, so I proposed to have
> the package in the same suite
It's only in proposed-updates because it was in stable-security. This is
not a change that was made via p-u.
> >The relevant bits of that bug appear to be confused between the security
> >archive, proposed-updates and stable-updates, which is unfortunate.
> >(e.g. there is no firefox or iceweasel package in jessie-updates, nor
> >has there ever been one.)
>
>
> I'm not sure I follow here, but I tried to call rmadison on my machine
> (I might have given the wrong command, sorry in advance)
>
> son -u debian firefox-esr
> firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1 | proposed-updates | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1 | testing | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> firefox-esr | 45.2.0esr-1 | unstable | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
You've just agreed with me. :-) The log for #815006 includes "I see esr
is in wheezy-updates and jessie-updates, not backports." which your
paste has clearly demonstrated is incorrect.
(It's in security.d.o:wheezy/updates, security.d.o:jessie/updates and as
a side-effect of the latter also in jessie-proposed-updates. It's in
neither of wheezy-updates or jessie-updates.)
> so, my proposal was to upload firefox-branding-iceweasel to proposed-updates
>
> (security is OT here, and I don't want to discuss that suite here)
I don't see how it can possibly be off-topic. You're discussing a
package that's intended to allow users to revert changes made in a
package that _was released via the security archive_.
> >I suspect we disagree as to whether this is a "bug" to begin with.
> >
> >It was an intentional choice on the part of the maintainers and the
> >security team, and was announced in the corresponding DSA. Are there
> >really users who aren't reading DSAs but are happy to install software
> >as root just because you told them to?
>
>
> there might be users that wants their name back, not sure who they are,
> I don't want to have to answer here, but I still think giving users the choice
> is something sane that might avoid troubles or complains.
Sure. As I said, I'm not disagreeing with the concept, just whether p-u
is the right means of delivering it. (and, no, "the change is in p-u"
isn't an argument, as above - the change is in security, it just happens
to be copied to p-u.)
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: