Bug#831447: firefox-branding-iceweasel 0.4.0 MIGRATED to testing

[Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>]

Hi Adam!




>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.


I didn't say the original statement, so I leave nord-stream answering here :)

>It's only in proposed-updates because it was in stable-security. This is
>not a change that was made via p-u.


now I see everything differently!

>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.


that was a typo, I didn't pay too much attention to that statement while writing
it.

>(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.)


yep, it is clear now, thanks
>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_.


it is off-topic, until you say something like "hey, the change was made
by security, and having in p-u is just a side effect, please close this bug
and coordinate with security team"

it is just off-topic because security isn't in cc and involved (yet).
>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.)

now that this is clear and thanks a lot for that, would you like to close this
one and ask -security team?

thanks for the *helpful* answer,

Gianfranco