flashplugin-nonfree in Debian

[Bart Martens-3]

Hello debian-release team,
      debian-volatile team,
      debian-security team,

I have updated bug report 457291 "flashplugin-nonfree: decision
2007-12-21: keep this package out of stable starting with lenny".
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=457291

I hereby invite you to evaluate how my newest comments on that bug
report match or conflict with your policies, and to share your thoughts
with me, replies preferably sent to 457291-quiet@... .

Thanks in advance,

Bart Martens

[Luk Claes]

Bart Martens wrote:

> Hello debian-release team,
>       debian-volatile team,
>       debian-security team,
>
> I have updated bug report 457291 "flashplugin-nonfree: decision
> 2007-12-21: keep this package out of stable starting with lenny".
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=457291
>
> I hereby invite you to evaluate how my newest comments on that bug
> report match or conflict with your policies, and to share your thoughts
> with me, replies preferably sent to 457291-quiet@... .

Sorry for not answering sooner.

I want to have a more general solution, so instead of focusing on
flashplugin-nonfree, I'd rather want to have a common policy for stable,
volatile and backports so it would be very clear for everyone how things
are supported and where to find updates.

I've requested a slot at DebConf to discuss this into detail, though
feel free to start a discussion already on debian-devel.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-volatile-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jan Wagner-4]

Hi Luk,

On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Luk Claes wrote:

> Bart Martens wrote:
> > I have updated bug report 457291 "flashplugin-nonfree: decision
> > 2007-12-21: keep this package out of stable starting with lenny".
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=457291
> >
> > I hereby invite you to evaluate how my newest comments on that bug
> > report match or conflict with your policies, and to share your thoughts
> > with me, replies preferably sent to 457291-quiet@... .
>
> I want to have a more general solution, so instead of focusing on
> flashplugin-nonfree, I'd rather want to have a common policy for stable,
> volatile and backports so it would be very clear for everyone how things
> are supported and where to find updates.
>
> I've requested a slot at DebConf to discuss this into detail, though
> feel free to start a discussion already on debian-devel.

sorry for coming around with another issue. While reading your comment without
giving any details about your ideas, I don't know if our problem maybe
related, sorry if not.
There are many packages, which are frequently removed from testing right
before the release, cause of (potential) security issues and not getting in
worries with the security team. Other packages may be obsoleted by upstream
and lose their support.
This is often the case for web applications. We had something in mind we
summarized at http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/Webapps.

Maybe you can consider our issue in your thoughts.

Thanks and with kind regards, Jan.
--
Never write mail to <waja@...>, you have been warned!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE
Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[Romain Beauxis-2]

        Hi !

Le Wednesday 22 April 2009 09:07:58 Jan Wagner, vous avez écrit :

> > I've requested a slot at DebConf to discuss this into detail, though
> > feel free to start a discussion already on debian-devel.
>
> sorry for coming around with another issue. While reading your comment
> without giving any details about your ideas, I don't know if our problem
> maybe related, sorry if not.
> There are many packages, which are frequently removed from testing right
> before the release, cause of (potential) security issues and not getting in
> worries with the security team. Other packages may be obsoleted by upstream
> and lose their support.
> This is often the case for web applications. We had something in mind we
> summarized at http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/Webapps.

I also believe this is an interesting proposal.

Additionally, even though webapps upstream can provide a bugfix release with
only security-related fixes, due to the nature of the security issues in
webapps, this can also mean hudge changes which are not easy at all to review
for a security upload. This is was the case for the latest security upload of
mediawiki (version 1:1.12.0-2lenny3).

However, I wonder if this would need yet another archive, or just an update of
a policy, either in backports.org or volatile..

Romain


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-volatile-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jan Wagner-4]

Hi Romain,

On Wednesday 22 April 2009, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> However, I wonder if this would need yet another archive, or just an update
> of a policy, either in backports.org or volatile..

DUNNO for volatile, but the ftp-master of bpo, which is actually doing the
main work clarified, that don't like to be responsible for PHP based
packages, which is the most potential languages of the applications which
matches the criterias.

With kind regards, Jan.
--
Never write mail to <waja@...>, you have been warned!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE
Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------