USN-186-1 (mozilla, mozilla-firefox) updates broken on Hoary

[Martin Meredith]

Can I make a point... I don't think official backports people should be
pushed over to someone else... but I do agree that unofficial should be
closed... the stuff that cant be soerted for official can go in extras...

John, if I remember correctly, you told me that once official was
released, that the old repos would be made so that they were 403'd ...
but that never seemed to happen.

John, you are still in charge of the old repos, and I URGE you to close
them, but, I cannot do that, as you know.

I'm sorry for not being around, but I totall agree about closing the old
repos, they cause too many problems.

If the decision is made for the official backports people to step back,
I'll step back gracefully, but I don't think anything should be taken
out on me for something I have no control over except the ability to try
and persuade.

Regards,
Martin Meredith

John Dong wrote:
> I don't have any objections to this. And yes, I'd love to have some help
> doing so -- transitional packages that end up in official
> hoary-backports would be great.
> 
> On 9/25/05, *Reinhard Tartler* <siretart at gmail.com
> <mailto:siretart at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 9/25/05, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com
>     <mailto:siretart at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > On 9/25/05, John Dong <john.dong at gmail.com
>     <mailto:john.dong at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > > The people who have hoary-backports 1.0.6 installed cannot
>     transition back
>     > > to hoary-security style, non-breezy mozilla-firefox packages without
>     > > overwrite warnings, unless hoary-security gets a Conflicts:
>     firefox line in
>     > > their rules.
>     >
>     > John, this is not right.
>     >
>     > You could easily install a transition package in your backports
>     > repository, which enables users upgrading to the version of firefox in
>     > warty and hoary on security.ubuntu.com
>     <http://security.ubuntu.com> without any user interaction.
>     >
>     > And excatly this was proposed by Martin Pitt.
> 
>     btw, you do know how to create empty packages, which just depends on
>     the new package name, do you?
>     (Exactly this was proposed by pitti in his original mail).
> 
>     Do you have any objections with this solution? Need help with this?
> 
>     --
>     regards,
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20051014/7fe3786a/signature.pgp