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

[Stephan Hermann]

Hi John,

so to provide support means:

	Hey, Users, take this package, break your system, and complain
	about it to the Ubuntu Support Base?

Please, I fought now 2 days on the german ubuntu channel with your crap,
and you aren't 

1. on IRC
2. u don't provide a separate support base for your repository
3. u didn't care what happend

So, the best thing is: Shut it down. Every package which is there, can
be backported to hoary in a better way.

But if this is not going to happen, I'll propose towards CC/TB that the
backports team, like it is now, have to step back, some others will take
the reponsibilty and following the rules. Not being responsible is one
thing we should avoid, regarding the userbase. 

These things happened, not because the Ubuntu package was broken, no it
was yours from unofficial repos. If you're not able to backport the
packages correctly, please ask. If you don't have the time to ask,
please step back and let others, who have the time, do it the right way.

Sorry, my 2 €-Cent
\sh

Am Sonntag, den 25.09.2005, 11:54 -0400 schrieb John Dong:
> It certainly did happen, ogra. It's just that there are still a
> significant number of packages that didn't pass the more rigorous
> requirements imposed by the movement to official, and we still have to
> provide support for those in Hoary's world.
> 
> On 9/25/05, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>         hi,
>         Am Sonntag, den 25.09.2005, 16:11 +0200 schrieb Martin Pitt:
>         > The security update is fine, the problem is that you use
>         backports,
>         > which are screwed up in Hoary. They renamed the package
>         > "mozilla-firefox" to "firefox" without doing a proper
>         transition, so 
>         > you now ended up with having both packages installed, which
>         is bogus.
>         what bothers me most is that we all agreed that the official
>         backports
>         (with exclusion of hoary-extras) would be shut down as soon as
>         the 
>         backports team gets free server space, free bandwith and and
>         option to
>         use the build infrastructure for the backports to make them
>         official.
>         
>         why didnt that happen ? its very odd since it occupies a lot
>         of
>         developer time for unnecessary support (which seemingly does
>         not exist
>         for the inofficial backports) three weeks before breezy
>         release, this
>         time would better have been spent fixing bugs in breezy.
>         
>         ciao
>                 oli 
>         
>         
>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>         Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>         
>         iD8DBQBDNr/PSsOT
>         +6LQaTYRAtotAKCRco9HtAUA2YxCVtxZZgTKx74JFACaA2C1
>         Xefs5ufnjJ7pz3LtcDv4GrY=
>         =TKDA
>         -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>         
>         
>         --
>         ubuntu-backports mailing list
>         ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
>         http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
>         
>         
>