Debian Bug report logs - #815006
Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Cc: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: iceweasel
Version: 45.0~b5-1
Severity: normal


The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.

The various issues mentioned in bug #354622 have been now tackled.


= Actors =
Mike Hommey is one of the most prolific Mozilla developer in term of number
of commits (in the top 10). He is also a Mozilla employee. He has been
maintaining Firefox/Iceweasel in Debian since 2004.

Mike Connor is leading the partner efforts at Mozilla.

Sylvestre Ledru is leading the Mozilla release management & stability teams.
He is also involved in Debian since 2006.

Stefano Zacchiroli has been the Debian Project Leader for 3 years (2010
to 2013) and he has been part of Debian/Mozilla conversations since then.


= About the Debian specific patches =

Mozilla recognizes that patches applied to Iceweasel/Firefox don't
impact the quality of the product.
Patches which should be reported upstream to improve the product always
have been forward upstream by the Debian packagers. Mozilla agrees about
specific patches to facilitate the support of Iceweasel on architecture
supported by Debian or Debian-specific patches.

More generally, Mozilla trusts the Debian packagers to use their best
judgment to achieve the same quality as the official Firefox binaries.

In case of derivatives of Debian, Firefox branding can be used as long
as the patches applied are in the same category as described above.
Ubuntu having a different packaging, this does not apply to that
distribution.


= About stable releases =

Mozilla releases new Firefox releases every 6 to 8 weeks.
In parallel of these rapid releases, Mozilla proposes a version called
ESR which is maintained for about 9 months.
On the contrary, Debian having a longer release cycle (about every two
years), release cycles don't align.
Because of the complexity of backporting security fixes, Debian cannot
maintain a deprecated ESR release.

To address this packaging issue, once a ESR cycle is over, Debian has
been accepting uploads of new ESR releases in the stable release.


= About branding =
Mozilla & Debian both acknowledge that the branding issue mentioned in
bug 354622 is
no longer relevant.
The Firefox logo was released under a free copyright license which
matches the DFSG.


= About Debian stable =
To simplify the maintenance of the current stable Debian release, the name
iceweasel will remain.
Debian Stretch, the next release, will have Firefox as package name.


= About Icedove/Thunderbird =
Similar discussions with the icedove maintainers have just started to do the same
for this package.

The attached patch implements the changes.

[0001-Rename-iceweasel-to-Firefox.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #10 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

Subject: Iceweasel / Firefox: Trademarks?

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:55:26 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Not to derail this bug, but have we addressed the trademark issues with
"Firefox"?

At minimum, the trademark guidelines say we can't charge for the software,
what's our stance on that?

The *software* is clearly DFSG Free, and the Logo might even be (yay!), but
if we can't actually express our freedoms, I have to ask, is it actually?

God knows I don't want to dig down this hole too far, but I guess
generally, but this strikes me as funny:

From: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/


If you are using the Mozilla Mark(s) for the unaltered binaries you are
distributing, you may not charge for that product. By not charging, we mean
the Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution (whether by
download or other media) may not be subject to a fee, or tied to
subscribing to or purchasing a service, or the collection of personal
information. If you want to sell the product, you may do so, but you must
call that product by another name—one unrelated to Mozilla or any of the
Mozilla Marks (see the sections on "Modifications" and "Related Software"
below). Remember that we do not want the public to be confused.


-- 
:wq

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #15 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>

To: "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com>,815006@bugs.debian.org,Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>,Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>,Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Iceweasel / Firefox: Trademarks?

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:32:59 +0100

On February 17, 2016 5:55:26 PM GMT+01:00, "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> wrote:
>At minimum, the trademark guidelines say we can't charge for the
>software,
>what's our stance on that?

We are building our own binaries and not using Mozilla's "unaltered binaries", so that clause (which BTW I hate and consider cause for the non-free-ness of upstream binaries) doesn't apply to us.
Neither it applies to our downstream; so it isn't even a "specific to Debian" DFSG issue.

Cheers.
-- 
Sent from my mobile phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Message #20 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com>

To: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Iceweasel / Firefox: Trademarks?

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:34:57 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Great, thanks!
  Paul

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>
wrote:

>
>
> On February 17, 2016 5:55:26 PM GMT+01:00, "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <
> paultag@gmail.com> wrote:
> >At minimum, the trademark guidelines say we can't charge for the
> >software,
> >what's our stance on that?
>
> We are building our own binaries and not using Mozilla's "unaltered
> binaries", so that clause (which BTW I hate and consider cause for the
> non-free-ness of upstream binaries) doesn't apply to us.
> Neither it applies to our downstream; so it isn't even a "specific to
> Debian" DFSG issue.
>
> Cheers.
> --
> Sent from my mobile phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>



-- 
:wq

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #25 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: yay yay yay

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:26:34 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

just wanted to say "yay" & big thanks to everyone involved!


cheers,
	Holger

<font size="-1">and we're not there yet… but… yay! :-)</font>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #30 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

Cc: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:48:25 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> = About the Debian specific patches =

Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.

What is the plan to solve this dilemma?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #35 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:50:37 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
> make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
> distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.
> 
> What is the plan to solve this dilemma?

Let's take the worst case scenario: Mozilla's policy gets so extreme
that *every* derived works must be rebranded away from Mozilla's
marks---assuming for a moment that that is something that could be
enforced using trademark law in the first place. Such a policy would be
fine w.r.t. DFSG §4.

If a policy is less clear cut than that (as Mozilla's is), and we
(Debian) decide to use the marks anyhow, what we are doing is a risk
assessment exercise. We consider in good faith that the patches we will
apply will be OK w.r.t. the (unclear) policy and that therefore Mozilla
will not force us to rebrand. But we might be wrong, and Mozilla might
decide to force us to rebrand, which will be a PITA if it has to happen
in stable.

AFAIU there is no formal/contractual guarantee that Mozilla is giving
Debian here, nor they are giving us a trademark license. So DFSG §8 is
respected. Mozilla just recognizes that the kind of work that Debian
Firefox maintainers have done in the past, if continued in the future,
*should* be fine w.r.t. their trademark policy. As per my understanding
of trademark law, and given no trademark license is being given to
Debian, others (including our downstreams) will be able to apply the
same changes to Firefox without being forced to rebrand either.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> 
> > = About the Debian specific patches =
> 
> Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
> make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
> distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.
> 
> What is the plan to solve this dilemma?

I don't see a dilemma.

If Mozilla were saying "Debian is a big player, so we're giving them an
exception", you'd have a point. But that's not what they're saying.

Instead, they're saying "we've observed Debian's past behaviour, and
consider that what they've been doing thus far is something we don't see
as violating our trademark". That isn't Debian-specific; as long as
other people could, in theory, get the same exception, we're good wrt
DFSG#8 -- even if nobody ends up trying to get that same exception. It
would still be the case if Mozilla were to reject the use of their
trademark by some other party, if that other party were to do something
really egregious.

Of course, this is a balancing act, and something we (Debian) should
carefully monitor. But as long as the above still holds, I don't see a
problem wrt DFSG#8.

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David McMackins <contact@mcmackins.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:42:08 -0600

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > 
> > > = About the Debian specific patches =
> > 
> > Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> > requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> > clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> > Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
> > make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
> > distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.
> > 
> > What is the plan to solve this dilemma?
> 
> I don't see a dilemma.
> 
> If Mozilla were saying "Debian is a big player, so we're giving them an
> exception", you'd have a point. But that's not what they're saying.
> 
> Instead, they're saying "we've observed Debian's past behaviour, and
> consider that what they've been doing thus far is something we don't see
> as violating our trademark". That isn't Debian-specific; as long as
> other people could, in theory, get the same exception, we're good wrt
> DFSG#8 -- even if nobody ends up trying to get that same exception. It
> would still be the case if Mozilla were to reject the use of their
> trademark by some other party, if that other party were to do something
> really egregious.
> 
> Of course, this is a balancing act, and something we (Debian) should
> carefully monitor. But as long as the above still holds, I don't see a
> problem wrt DFSG#8.
> 
> -- 
> < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
>        people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
>        and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
>  -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12

I still think we are approaching something dangerous. Sure, we might
have the ability to make these patches which Mozilla doesn't think
misuse their trademark, but what about users who want to make a heavier
modification and redistribute? Now they would have to rebrand. As it
currently stands, Debian has done this tremendous work for them and
actually helped them to exercise their freedom.

I don't want to see Debian go to a place where users are put a step back
just because the Debian patches and similar are okay with Mozilla.


Happy Hacking,

David E. McMackins II
Associate, Free Software Foundation (#12889)

www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com
www.gnu.org www.fsf.org

Message #50 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: David McMackins <contact@mcmackins.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 21:54:30 +0900

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:42:08AM -0600, David McMackins wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > > 
> > > > = About the Debian specific patches =
> > > 
> > > Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> > > requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> > > clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> > > Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
> > > make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
> > > distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.
> > > 
> > > What is the plan to solve this dilemma?
> > 
> > I don't see a dilemma.
> > 
> > If Mozilla were saying "Debian is a big player, so we're giving them an
> > exception", you'd have a point. But that's not what they're saying.
> > 
> > Instead, they're saying "we've observed Debian's past behaviour, and
> > consider that what they've been doing thus far is something we don't see
> > as violating our trademark". That isn't Debian-specific; as long as
> > other people could, in theory, get the same exception, we're good wrt
> > DFSG#8 -- even if nobody ends up trying to get that same exception. It
> > would still be the case if Mozilla were to reject the use of their
> > trademark by some other party, if that other party were to do something
> > really egregious.
> > 
> > Of course, this is a balancing act, and something we (Debian) should
> > carefully monitor. But as long as the above still holds, I don't see a
> > problem wrt DFSG#8.
> > 
> > -- 
> > < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
> >        people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
> >        and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
> >  -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
> 
> I still think we are approaching something dangerous. Sure, we might
> have the ability to make these patches which Mozilla doesn't think
> misuse their trademark, but what about users who want to make a heavier
> modification and redistribute? Now they would have to rebrand. As it
> currently stands, Debian has done this tremendous work for them and
> actually helped them to exercise their freedom.
> 
> I don't want to see Debian go to a place where users are put a step back
> just because the Debian patches and similar are okay with Mozilla.

You do realize that users who want to make heavy modifications to e.g.
Apache HTTP Server or LibreOffice, to only name those two, have the same
problem, right?

Mike

Message #55 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

To: Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

Cc: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:42:52 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

While I won't pretend to fully grok the full nuance of DFSG interpretation,
this is a relatively accurate summary of the current position, and I
believe we're on the right side of DFSG at present from a licensing/policy
standpoint.  (Back in the day, out licensing of the marks themselves was
problematic, along with Firefox having a EULA, from a DFSG standpoint.
Happily, we were able to resolve both issues some time ago.)

The one point I'll clarify is that this isn't even something I'd call an
exception.  We have always sought to permit and enable modifications that
do not negatively impact users (in terms of security/privacy, user
expectations of Firefox stability/behaviour/compatibility, etc).  Other
distros have been following this process for more than a decade, so it's
definitely not a special case for Debian.  I'm thrilled that we're finally
making this step forward with Debian.  If other distros have questions or
concerns, I'm happy to provide answers.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:48:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> > > = About the Debian specific patches =
> >
> > Mozilla's trademark policy isn't clear about how much modification
> > requires Mozilla's written consent. Any written consent except for a
> > clarification to Mozilla's trademark guidelines would be specific to
> > Debian and thus would be in violation of DFSG item 8. Debian cannot
> > make agreements with Mozilla about this that don't also apply to all
> > distributors of modified versions of Mozilla's software.
> >
> > What is the plan to solve this dilemma?
>
> I don't see a dilemma.
>
> If Mozilla were saying "Debian is a big player, so we're giving them an
> exception", you'd have a point. But that's not what they're saying.
>
> Instead, they're saying "we've observed Debian's past behaviour, and
> consider that what they've been doing thus far is something we don't see
> as violating our trademark". That isn't Debian-specific; as long as
> other people could, in theory, get the same exception, we're good wrt
> DFSG#8 -- even if nobody ends up trying to get that same exception. It
> would still be the case if Mozilla were to reject the use of their
> trademark by some other party, if that other party were to do something
> really egregious.
>
> Of course, this is a balancing act, and something we (Debian) should
> carefully monitor. But as long as the above still holds, I don't see a
> problem wrt DFSG#8.
>
> --
> < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a
> dozen
>        people in the world who think they really understand all of its
> rules,
>        and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
>  -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #60 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

To: David McMackins <contact@mcmackins.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:58:51 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi David,

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 06:42:08AM -0600, David McMackins wrote:
[on firefox trademark rename requirement]
> I still think we are approaching something dangerous. Sure, we might
> have the ability to make these patches which Mozilla doesn't think
> misuse their trademark, but what about users who want to make a heavier
> modification and redistribute? Now they would have to rebrand. As it
> currently stands, Debian has done this tremendous work for them and
> actually helped them to exercise their freedom.

Possibly.

I'm not sure it's a problem for users' freedoms, however.

If you want to modify a GPL-licensed software package, you have several
options:
- You can keep the modifications to yourself, and do whatever you want,
- You can share the modified source with one or more persons, and let
  them do whatever they want with it,
- You can share the precompiled binaries with one or more persons (which
  is much more convenient for them), but then you have to do all these
  other things too, to preserve their freedom.

Is the last option an inconvenience? Yes. Certainly. It doesn't reduce
your freedom to make these modifications, however.

Similarly, if you want to modify a trademarked freely-licensed software
package, you have several options:
- You can keep the modifications to yourself, and do whatever you want,
- You can share the modifications with one or more persons, and get the
  trademark holder to ack your modifications as allowed under their
  trademark,
- You can choose not to restrict yourself to what the trademark holder
  allows you to do, but then you have to make all these other
  modifications too, to rename the resulting software package to
  something else.

Is the last option an inconvenience? Yes. Certainly. But very much like
is the case for the third option in the GPL-licensed package, I don't
think the inconveniences in *this* third option are in any way a
reduction of your freedom to make modifications.

If want to make modifications to GPL-licensed software, you have to do a
number of things to allow others to get the source.

Similarly, if you want to make modifications to trademarked free
software without an explicit agreement by the trademark holder, you have
to do a number of things to rename the package.

I don't think the desire of the Mozilla Foundation to protect their name
is in any way or form counter to the ideals and principles of free
software. On the contrary; a good name can be very beneficial for the
furtherance of free software, and the ability to protect a name is
essential in that context.

Having said all that,

> I don't want to see Debian go to a place where users are put a step back
> just because the Debian patches and similar are okay with Mozilla.

I *do* agree that a free software package which has a trademark,
requiring the rename of the software package in question upon any change
that is not acked by the original copyright holder, *should* make it
easy for anyone to rename their package. Ideally, this would be done by
way of a build-time option, or having a header file which can be edited,
or something along those lines.

I do think that a software package which requires itself to be renamed
but at the same time makes that particularly obnoxious is not free
software. Firefox does not match that description, however.

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:19:43 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Thanks to everyone for the explanation. I think I understand the situation now.

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 10:42 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:

> The one point I'll clarify is that this isn't even something I'd call
> an exception.  We have always sought to permit and enable
> modifications that do not negatively impact users (in terms of
> security/privacy, user expectations of Firefox
> stability/behaviour/compatibility, etc).  Other distros have been
> following this process for more than a decade, so it's definitely not
> a special case for Debian.  I'm thrilled that we're finally making
> this step forward with Debian.  If other distros have questions or
> concerns, I'm happy to provide answers.

Could the Mozilla employees in this thread please get the trademark
policy updated so that what Debian and other distributions are doing is
explicitly allowed by the policy? As it stands, theoretically "any
modification to the Mozilla product" ... "will require our permission
if you want to use the Mozilla Marks" and Linux distros are thus
relying on Mozilla ignoring their lack of trademark license.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #70 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>, Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be>

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:16:09 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le 19/02/2016 01:19, Paul Wise a écrit :
> Thanks to everyone for the explanation. I think I understand the situation now.
>
> On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 10:42 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> The one point I'll clarify is that this isn't even something I'd call
>> an exception.  We have always sought to permit and enable
>> modifications that do not negatively impact users (in terms of
>> security/privacy, user expectations of Firefox
>> stability/behaviour/compatibility, etc).  Other distros have been
>> following this process for more than a decade, so it's definitely not
>> a special case for Debian.  I'm thrilled that we're finally making
>> this step forward with Debian.  If other distros have questions or
>> concerns, I'm happy to provide answers.
> Could the Mozilla employees in this thread please get the trademark
> policy updated so that what Debian and other distributions are doing is
> explicitly allowed by the policy? As it stands, theoretically "any
> modification to the Mozilla product" ... "will require our permission
> if you want to use the Mozilla Marks" and Linux distros are thus
> relying on Mozilla ignoring their lack of trademark license.
>
I agree that it would be better to explicit that in the trademark policy.
As you can imagine (just like in Debian), this kind of changes can take time.
Until then, I believe that Mike Connor's comment and my bug report (note
that I used my @mozilla.com email address and not @debian.org) should
be enough for the Debian ftpmasters.

Sylvestre

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #75 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, team@security.debian.org

Cc: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:19:46 +0900

mmmm, I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
in the Cc list...

Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable
(see further below)?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > diff --git a/debian/control.in b/debian/control.in
> > index 56184ad..b5785a0 100644
> > --- a/debian/control.in
> > +++ b/debian/control.in
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -Source: iceweasel
> > +Source: firefox
> >  Section: web
> >  Priority: optional
> >  Maintainer: Maintainers of Mozilla-related packages <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> > @@ -159,6 +159,15 @@ Description: Development files for the Gecko engine library
> >   same form as the one you may find on mozilla.org in /usr/lib/xulrunner/sdk.
> >  Homepage: http://wiki.mozilla.org/XUL:Lib_XUL
> >  
> > +%if browser == OFFICIAL_NAME
> > +Package: iceweasel
> > +Architecture: any
> > +Depends: @browser@
> > +Description: Mozilla Firefox web browser - transition package
> > + This is a transition package to the Firefox browser
> > +%endif
> 
> Don't we want the full Depends/Conflicts/Breaks boilerplate here?
> 
> On a separate note, what do we do for stable? Not necessarily for the
> coming version bump with 45, but the next one next year. Undoubtedly the
> branding is going to break somewhere in the middle (it broke multiple
> times between 38 and 45), and that will go unnoticed until then.
> 
> Also, there's the longstanding issue that we don't have much legroom
> for new releases, and where, for the longest time, releases are on
> experimental and esr on unstable/testing.
> 
> While it's unrelated, I think it's about time to introduce 2 packages,
> one firefox-esr, and one firefox. We may or may not decide to make only
> the former ship to stable, but that's something that doesn't need to be
> decided now. I think there's enough value having both esr and release
> available in testing/unstable.
> 
> IIRC, the packaging kind of supports this already, although there might
> need some minor adjustments.
> 
> Which bring me to this thought: maybe upload a firefox package now that
> doesn't have the iceweasel transition package, wait for 45 to be released,
> upload firefox 45 and firefox-esr 45 with the latter providing a
> transitional iceweasel package depending on it, so that iceweasel users
> end up on firefox-esr.
> 
> Mike

Message #80 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:48:10 +0100

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:19:46PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> mmmm, I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
> in the Cc list...
> 
> Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable
> (see further below)?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > > diff --git a/debian/control.in b/debian/control.in
> > > index 56184ad..b5785a0 100644
> > > --- a/debian/control.in
> > > +++ b/debian/control.in
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > -Source: iceweasel
> > > +Source: firefox

Excellent news!

> > Which bring me to this thought: maybe upload a firefox package now that
> > doesn't have the iceweasel transition package, wait for 45 to be released,
> > upload firefox 45 and firefox-esr 45 with the latter providing a
> > transitional iceweasel package depending on it, so that iceweasel users

That's personally fine with me; with the model that we're following ESR, we're 
bound to some changes in ESR upgrades anyway.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #85 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 21:46:59 +0900

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:48:10PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 08:19:46PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > mmmm, I had meant to send this to the bug, but somehow, the bug wasn't
> > in the Cc list...
> > 
> > Does the security team (now CCed) have a comment to make about stable
> > (see further below)?
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 07:23:32AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/debian/control.in b/debian/control.in
> > > > index 56184ad..b5785a0 100644
> > > > --- a/debian/control.in
> > > > +++ b/debian/control.in
> > > > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > > > -Source: iceweasel
> > > > +Source: firefox
> 
> Excellent news!
> 
> > > Which bring me to this thought: maybe upload a firefox package now that
> > > doesn't have the iceweasel transition package, wait for 45 to be released,
> > > upload firefox 45 and firefox-esr 45 with the latter providing a
> > > transitional iceweasel package depending on it, so that iceweasel users
> 
> That's personally fine with me; with the model that we're following ESR, we're 
> bound to some changes in ESR upgrades anyway.

For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr
transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be by 45.2,
at the beginning of June)

Mike

Message #90 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, team@security.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:21:44 +0100

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:46:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr
> transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be by 45.2,
> at the beginning of June)

It's likely a lot easier on your side if we do that, right?

It might actually even also be simpler for us, since we wouldn't need to track two
different source package names for several years.

If the respective transition packages are in place, that seems acceptable
to me (after all we had a in comparison more drastic UI change between ESR24
and ESR31).

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #95 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <glandium@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 18:33:26 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
...
> = About branding =

Would it be possible to retain the iceweasel package as a branding
package that simply depends on firefox-esr? I like the icy weasel.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #100 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Cc: 815006@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>, Mike Hommey <glandium@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:43:08 +0900

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:33:26PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> 
> > The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
> ...
> > = About branding =
> 
> Would it be possible to retain the iceweasel package as a branding
> package that simply depends on firefox-esr? I like the icy weasel.

Technically, it is possible to do this with a branding addon, but some
of the branding changes that iceweasel currently does are not possible
in that setup.

If someone wants to come forward with such a package, I can give some
level of assistance, but I won't actively do it myself.

Mike

Message #105 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Benjamin Kerensa <bkerensa@ubuntu.com>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:38:03 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I'm glad this finally got sorted out having been involved in some of the
discussions
earlier on and trying to sort out the differences. Kudos to everyone who
sorted this out!


On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:55:42 +0100 Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>
wrote:
> Package: iceweasel
> Version: 45.0~b5-1
> Severity: normal
>
>
> The goal of this bug is to rename Iceweasel in Firefox.
>
> The various issues mentioned in bug #354622 have been now tackled.
>
>
> = Actors =
> Mike Hommey is one of the most prolific Mozilla developer in term of
number
> of commits (in the top 10). He is also a Mozilla employee. He has been
> maintaining Firefox/Iceweasel in Debian since 2004.
>
> Mike Connor is leading the partner efforts at Mozilla.
>
> Sylvestre Ledru is leading the Mozilla release management & stability
teams.
> He is also involved in Debian since 2006.
>
> Stefano Zacchiroli has been the Debian Project Leader for 3 years (2010
> to 2013) and he has been part of Debian/Mozilla conversations since then.
>
>
> = About the Debian specific patches =
>
> Mozilla recognizes that patches applied to Iceweasel/Firefox don't
> impact the quality of the product.
> Patches which should be reported upstream to improve the product always
> have been forward upstream by the Debian packagers. Mozilla agrees about
> specific patches to facilitate the support of Iceweasel on architecture
> supported by Debian or Debian-specific patches.
>
> More generally, Mozilla trusts the Debian packagers to use their best
> judgment to achieve the same quality as the official Firefox binaries.
>
> In case of derivatives of Debian, Firefox branding can be used as long
> as the patches applied are in the same category as described above.
> Ubuntu having a different packaging, this does not apply to that
> distribution.
>
>
> = About stable releases =
>
> Mozilla releases new Firefox releases every 6 to 8 weeks.
> In parallel of these rapid releases, Mozilla proposes a version called
> ESR which is maintained for about 9 months.
> On the contrary, Debian having a longer release cycle (about every two
> years), release cycles don't align.
> Because of the complexity of backporting security fixes, Debian cannot
> maintain a deprecated ESR release.
>
> To address this packaging issue, once a ESR cycle is over, Debian has
> been accepting uploads of new ESR releases in the stable release.
>
>
> = About branding =
> Mozilla & Debian both acknowledge that the branding issue mentioned in
> bug 354622 is
> no longer relevant.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #110 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, DPL <leader@debian.org>, Mike Connor <mconnor@mozilla.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:18:56 +0900

Time flies, and no upload has been done yet. I apologize for this. I've
been successively busy, then down with influenza.

Anyways, after having given this more thought, here are a few
observations on the implementation side:

- Since Debian hasn't had firefox* package in years, and even back then,
  according to snapshot.debian.org, there weren't any firefox-l10n
  packages (only individual firefox-locale-* packages), we can drop the
  epoch in the l10n packages version numbers (woohoo! They were added
  for no apparent reason ; at least none explained in the iceweasel-l10n
  source package changelog).

- For the same reason, parts of the "upgrade" code can go away (things
  that remove compreg.dat, xpti.dat and .autoreg, for instance ; or old
  conffiles)

- Going around the debian/ directory, I realize libxul.pc as installed
  in iceweasel-dev has been wrong since version 40... yet that went
  largely unnoticed. Which brings the question: do we need to provide
  pkgconfig files? They were justified back when xulrunner-dev existed,
  but things have changed since then. And it's not like those files
  exist upstream (they were part of xulrunner in some way, and never
  existed when building Firefox ; the Firefox SDK has never come with
  pkgconfig files). I'm tempted to say: "clean slate, start without them",
  although the versioned paths in the -dev package are kind of
  annoying...

- The information about sound in README.Debian is irrelevant to a new
  package and some of the information in that file is actually outdated.
  I doubt the instructions for java still work, for instance.

- Relatedly, the information in NEWS should probably move to README.Debian.

- Not related to switching to Firefox, but just adding this as a note to
  myself, so as not to forget: I removed the menu file in iceweasel
  44.0.2-1, but didn't remove the .xpm icon it was using. There is no
  reason to keep that icon around.

- My plan is to upload an "independent" Firefox package (as in, with no
  transitional package) that will follow Firefox releases every 6~8
  weeks. Considering the timing in the current cycle, I might as well
  wait for the release of Firefox 45 next week, although since the
  package would have to go through NEW, it is also sensible to upload 44
  ASAP to get a chance to get it out of NEW before 45 is released.
  This package would have a permanent RC bug to prevent it from entering
  testing, because it is not expected to be part of a Debian release.

- A separate "firefox-esr" source package would provide iceweasel and
  iceweasel-l10n-* transitional package and would follow Firefox ESR
  releases. Something that needs to be checked is what the Debian policy-
  compliant way of moving the conffiles from /etc/iceweasel to
  /etc/firefox-esr would be.

- Speaking of conffiles, version 46 is removing /etc/$package/profile.
  I'm very tempted to remove it in 45 because that would only leave
  /etc/iceweasel/pref/*.js to migrate, and would keep upgrade code free of
  conffiles removal entirely. This would allow to simply use
  /etc/firefox{,-esr}/*.js files.

Mike

Message #115 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: u <u@451f.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Icedove -> Thunderbird

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:12:30 +0000

Hi,

in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006#5, you state
that similar discussions are going on for the renaming of Icedove. Are
those publicly trackable somewhere?

Cheers!
u.

Message #120 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@t-online.de>

To: u <u@451f.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Icedove -> Thunderbird

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 15:27:27 +0100

Hello,

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:12:30PM +0000, u wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815006#5, you state
> that similar discussions are going on for the renaming of Icedove. Are
> those publicly trackable somewhere?

yes. Sylvestre opened up #816679 for tracking via the BTS for the
Icedove part.

http://bugs.debian.org/816679

Regards
Carsten

Message #125 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:56:34 +0000

About Iceweasel branding restoration add-on:
Got a preliminary review by Mozilla. More publicity is needed to get a
full review.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/iceweasel-branding/

Git repository is here (cleanup needed):
https://notabug.org/desktopd/iceweasel-branding

nord-stream

Message #130 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:21:42 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 11:56 +0000, nord-stream wrote:

> About Iceweasel branding restoration add-on:

I'm willing to upload this to Debian if you package it properly.
I expect it should take over the iceweasel transitional package?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #135 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:35:34 +0200

Le 06/04/2016 à 14:21, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 11:56 +0000, nord-stream wrote:
>
>> About Iceweasel branding restoration add-on:
> I'm willing to upload this to Debian if you package it properly.
> I expect it should take over the iceweasel transitional package?
I don't agree with this statement. I believe that people should get Firefox from now in Debian.
Debian users who wants to use Firefox on Debian have been "forced" to use Iceweasel, it wasn't a choice.
If people wants to get Iceweasel, they should install this theme.

Sylvestre

Message #140 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:04:00 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 14:35 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> If people wants to get Iceweasel, they should install this theme.

Fair enough. What would you recommend as a package name? Options:

xul-ext-iceweasel
firefox-branding-iceweasel
iceweasel-branding

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #145 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:09:36 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le 06/04/2016 à 15:04, Paul Wise a écrit :
> On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 14:35 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> If people wants to get Iceweasel, they should install this theme.
> Fair enough.
Thanks for your flexibility :)
>  What would you recommend as a package name? Options:
>
> xul-ext-iceweasel
> firefox-branding-iceweasel
> iceweasel-branding
>
The first one is too technical to me.

The two others are fine by me!

Sylvestre

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #150 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@mozilla.com>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:17:12 +0000

If a package name like xul-ext-* is not mandatory, I think we should go
with a nicer name. Probably firefox-branding-iceweasel is the best
because it makes clear that it is for Firefox. By the way, can we make
the transitional package suggest it then?

I'm reading Debian documents now :)
Should I put a debian/ directory into the original source repository
since it is mostly Debian-specific?

nord-stream

On 06/04/16 13:09, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le 06/04/2016 à 15:04, Paul Wise a écrit :
>> On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 14:35 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>
>>> If people wants to get Iceweasel, they should install this theme.
>> Fair enough.
> Thanks for your flexibility :)
>>  What would you recommend as a package name? Options:
>>
>> xul-ext-iceweasel
>> firefox-branding-iceweasel
>> iceweasel-branding
>>
> The first one is too technical to me.
> 
> The two others are fine by me!
> 
> Sylvestre
> 
> 

Message #155 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#815006: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:15:17 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 14:17 +0000, nord-stream wrote:

> Should I put a debian/ directory into the original source repository
> since it is mostly Debian-specific?

That is up to you, I don't mind either way.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #160 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, 821210@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Ready for review: firefox-branding-iceweasel

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 18:17:58 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I've just created a native package firefox-branding-iceweasel, which
can be built off the git repository at
https://notabug.org/desktopd/iceweasel-branding

This is installed as a Firefox extension. I hope that this will be
available when Iceweasel disappears from stable. Mozilla Extension
Packaging Team may be relevant.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=d7dw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #165 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "821210@bugs.debian.org" <821210@bugs.debian.org>, Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

Subject: Re: Ready for review: firefox-branding-iceweasel

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:21:11 +0000 (UTC)

Hi, some general nitpicks.


You really should team-maintain it
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-mozext-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
should be the right place.

licenses in debian/copyright needs to be verbose, not links

you have to open an ITP bug, then upload on mentors.debian.org
and ask an RFS bug.

somebody from pkg-mozext might give you a review of the package after that :)

(ccing Sean, who is doing a great job on pkg-mozext :p )

thanks for the work!

Gianfranco




Il Sabato 16 Aprile 2016 20:25, nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org> ha scritto:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I've just created a native package firefox-branding-iceweasel, which
can be built off the git repository at
https://notabug.org/desktopd/iceweasel-branding

This is installed as a Firefox extension. I hope that this will be
available when Iceweasel disappears from stable. Mozilla Extension
Packaging Team may be relevant.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=d7dw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #170 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>

To: 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 15:17:41 +0100

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:21:44 +0100 Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> 
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:46:59PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > For clarity, do you mean you're fine with a iceweasel->firefox-esr
> > transition in stable(jessie) when we upgrade to 45? (which will be 
by 45.2,
> > at the beginning of June)
>
> It's likely a lot easier on your side if we do that, right?
>
> It might actually even also be simpler for us, since we wouldn't need 
to track two
> different source package names for several years.
>
> If the respective transition packages are in place, that seems acceptable
> to me (after all we had a in comparison more drastic UI change 
between ESR24
> and ESR31).

I found this thread while checking when I should expect weasel-ESR31 to 
go (and when to worry if it doesn't).

I'm fine with this idea in principle.  However, some users will be 
surprised by transitional packages _within_ a stable release. Upgrading 
to a transitional package does not happen when "apt-get upgrade" is used.

I _think_ it'll be ok for many people because PackageKit does 
"dist-upgrade".  PK may prompt about installing additional packages 
(which is sub-optimal, but about par for Debian on the desktop). 
Unfortunately there *are* some setups which will fail this.

---

It looks like `unattended-upgrades` uses `apt-get update`. 
`unattended-upgrades` does include modes designed for desktop systems.

[1] 
http://askubuntu.com/questions/251303/how-to-automatically-install-updates-before-shutdown

I get paranoid about this, because my experience is both Debian 7 and 8 
installs lack working update notifications.

[2] 
http://blog.tenstral.net/2015/09/update-notifications-in-debian-jessie.html

This means a) I notice some desktop QA problem, so I should try to 
contribute to it; b) some desktops which _do_ have working update 
notifications will have been randomly hacked until they seemed to work.  
E.g. using unattended-upgrades as per the first link above :(.

I don't have a suggestion, other than strongly recommend PK & making 
sure it's working.  Just sharing the pain that flared up again when 
reading your words :-P.  Fortunately Stretch fixes gnome update 
notifications, at least when I last tested.

---

There was eventually a recommended backport (apt-config-auto-update), as 
a good hack to make PK work (about as well as update-manager used to).  
So that would be fine for transitional packages.  Other users may have 
switched back to update-manager.  I _hope_ that's ok due to coming from 
Ubuntu, where they assume "dist-upgrade" is used e.g. to get kernel updates.

Synaptic is also installed by default, and does not `dist-update`. It 
does not provide a prompt, but it does warn.  Apparently the warning 
includes the package names, so it should be _relatively_ obvious.

It looks like "apt-get update" is also used by the example configuration 
for `cron-apt`.  (Whereas apticron looks to use dist-upgrade).  If 
either of these kick off while Firefox is running, Firefox will crash.  
(The Chrome people have a whole rant about this :D).  So I don't expect 
updates-from-cron to be too common on desktops.

Regards
Alan

Message #175 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>, 821270@bugs.debian.org, locutusofborg@debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#821270: Review of git version

Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:49:17 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Source: firefox-branding-iceweasel

This package includes files under:
* MPL-2.0 (which is compatible with GPL-2.0+ and LGPL-2.1+)
* Triple licensing: MPL-1.1 or GPL-2.1+ or LGPL-2.1+ (compatible with
the above)

This is largely the same as just 'MPL-2.0'

nord-stream

On 06/01/2016 03:06 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Gianfranco took a look at the package and pointed out to me that the
> line
> 
>     License: MPL-2.0, and MPL-1.1 or GPL-2.0+ or LGPL-2.1+
> 
> in d/copyright doesn't really make sense.  What are you trying to say?
> 
> I pushed a commit to the team repo to use secure Vcs-* URIs.
> 

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #180 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:51:30 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

https://packages.debian.org/sid/xul-ext-iceweasel-branding

Can we do something to make this available to the users as soon as
possible? Now firefox-esr is out for stable users, too.

Also, we should consider adding a .desktop file to the package in order
to correct the inconsistent user experience caused by Firefox not having
the Iceweasel icon as expected. Currently, alternatives and dpkg-divert
are proposed. Any ideas?

/usr/share/applications/iceweasel.desktop (Iceweasel→Firefox ESR)

Thanks.

nord-stream

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #185 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:11:00 +0000 (UTC)

Hi,
>Can we do something to make this available to the users as soon as

>possible? Now firefox-esr is out for stable users, too.


the current package needs to migrate in testing first, and then you need to check with
-release team if a stable-proposed-update is feasible or not
(I see esr is in wheezy-updates and jessie-updates, not backports).

backporting it is possible but useless I think.

>Also, we should consider adding a .desktop file to the package in order
>to correct the inconsistent user experience caused by Firefox not having
>the Iceweasel icon as expected. Currently, alternatives and dpkg-divert
>are proposed. Any ideas?

I think this is the best idea


>/usr/share/applications/iceweasel.desktop (Iceweasel→Firefox ESR)


BTW, as maintainer you should be subscribed to bugs, and close them if useless/wrong/incomplete.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=826535

cheers,

G.

Message #190 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

Cc: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:59:46 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 04:11:00PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> backporting it is possible but useless I think.

Why do you think it would be useless?  Because it's a trivial backport?
It's easier to install a trivial backport on a stable system than to
enable the testing repo and carefully set up pinning etc.

> >Also, we should consider adding a .desktop file to the package in
> >order to correct the inconsistent user experience caused by Firefox
> >not having the Iceweasel icon as expected. Currently, alternatives
> >and dpkg-divert are proposed. Any ideas?
> 
> I think this is the best idea

Agreed.  I hope you can make it work, nord-stream :)

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #195 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org, debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:02:26 +0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 15:51 +0000, nord-stream wrote:

> https://packages.debian.org/sid/xul-ext-iceweasel-branding
> 
> Can we do something to make this available to the users as soon as
> possible? Now firefox-esr is out for stable users, too.

I think perhaps you meant "stable users" in the first sentence? If so:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable

> Also, we should consider adding a .desktop file to the package in order
> to correct the inconsistent user experience caused by Firefox not having
> the Iceweasel icon as expected. Currently, alternatives and dpkg-divert
> are proposed. Any ideas?
> 
> /usr/share/applications/iceweasel.desktop (Iceweasel→Firefox ESR)

I would suggest using dpkg-divert since less co-ordination is needed.

-- 

bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #200 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

Cc: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:06:56 +0000 (UTC)

Hi,



>Why do you think it would be useless?

the "bug" is introduce with a stable-release-update, and should be fixed
with another s-p-u

fixing it with a backport means the user should be aware of the fix in another
pocket, enable it, install it, and so on.
I guess having both "issue" and "fix" on the same pocket is reasonable
(note: I have no authoritative hat on)


>  Because it's a trivial backport?
>It's easier to install a trivial backport on a stable system than to
>enable the testing repo and carefully set up pinning etc.


sure, having a fix in stable is something we should do!

Gianfranco

Message #205 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

Cc: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:34:06 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> the "bug" is introduce with a stable-release-update, and should be fixed
> with another s-p-u
> 
> fixing it with a backport means the user should be aware of the fix in another
> pocket, enable it, install it, and so on.
> I guess having both "issue" and "fix" on the same pocket is reasonable
> (note: I have no authoritative hat on)

Ah right, I see what you mean.  I guess it's up to nord-stream whether
he thinks the package is fixing a bug or not, and whether it should go
into s-p-u or just bpo.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #210 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>

Cc: "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:27:28 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I've implemented dpkg-divert scripts and Iceweasel desktop icon works
beautifully for me with this change.

https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/

On 16/06/16 05:34, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:06:56PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>> the "bug" is introduce with a stable-release-update, and should be fixed
>> with another s-p-u
>>
>> fixing it with a backport means the user should be aware of the fix in another
>> pocket, enable it, install it, and so on.
>> I guess having both "issue" and "fix" on the same pocket is reasonable
>> (note: I have no authoritative hat on)
> 
> Ah right, I see what you mean.  I guess it's up to nord-stream whether
> he thinks the package is fixing a bug or not, and whether it should go

I'm a female student in Japan (".jp." in the email address), but I
didn't said that. As I have nothing to do with 'computer science', I
don't have so much time to work on coding. BTW, 'nord-stream' in my
email address refers to a Russian pipeline (just because the SMTP server
is in Russia).

> into s-p-u or just bpo.
> 

I'd like to submit the package to stable-release-update.


Thanks.
nord-stream

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #215 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:43:18 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:27:28AM +0000, nord-stream wrote:
> I've implemented dpkg-divert scripts and Iceweasel desktop icon works
> beautifully for me with this change.
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/

Works here too.

You should keep "UNRELEASED" instead of "unstable" in your changelog
entry until you formally request that a version of the package be
sponsored.  Especially since this is in a shared team repository.  Other
team members won't know whether they can make changes to the current
version's changelog if it always says "unstable".

You should probably add lintian overrides for the two
desktop-command-not-in-package warnings.

> I'm a female student in Japan (".jp." in the email address), but I
> didn't said that. As I have nothing to do with 'computer science', I
> don't have so much time to work on coding. BTW, 'nord-stream' in my
> email address refers to a Russian pipeline (just because the SMTP server
> is in Russia).

I guessed Japan!  My apologies for making an assumption about your
gender; I didn't notice that I had (not that that's an excuse).

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #220 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>

To: 815006-done@bugs.debian.org, Control bugs server <control@bugs.debian.org>, 815006@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Closing Renaming Iceweasel to Firefox

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:31:53 +0100

Hello,

As firefox-esr is  available in oldstable and stable, I am closing this bug.

Many thanks to Mike for making all the changes!

Next step, icedove => thunderbird (bug #816679)

Sylvestre

PS: about the iceweasel-branding, I believe you should continue the
discussion in the itp bug (if any).

Message #230 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:42:55 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello again nord-stream,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:27:28AM +0000, nord-stream wrote:
> I've implemented dpkg-divert scripts and Iceweasel desktop icon works
> beautifully for me with this change.
> 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/

I just checked the Debian Policy Manual on dpkg-divert.  It says "You
should not use `dpkg-divert' on a file belonging to another package
without consulting the maintainer of that package first."  Have you done
this?

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #235 received at 815006@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: nord-stream <nord-stream@ochaken.jp.eu.org>

To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

Cc: Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>, "815006@bugs.debian.org" <815006@bugs.debian.org>, "debian-mentors@lists.debian.org" <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>, "pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org" <pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>, pkg-mozext-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org

Subject: Re: Restore Iceweasel branding

Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:09:20 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Yes, as I consulted that section in Policy, I CC'd all of these messages
to pkg-mozilla-maintainers list. I haven't received any response about
it yet.

Explaining the topic here again:
* firefox-branding-iceweasel (Binary: xul-ext-iceweasel-branding), the
package to restore Iceweasel experience, did not provide a correctly
branded desktop icon as of the version 0.2.3 (now in testing).
* I've written a new version that substitutes the two .desktop files
from firefox(-esr) with Iceweasel ones to complete the rebranding, using
dpkg-divert.
* Since the use of dpkg-divert requires attention from the affected
maintainers, I'd like Mozilla packages maintainers to check the package.
Any piece of advice is welcome.

Git repository at pkg-mozext:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/

I intend to submit this for stable-release-update.

Thanks,
nord-stream

On 19/06/16 06:42, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello again nord-stream,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:27:28AM +0000, nord-stream wrote:
>> I've implemented dpkg-divert scripts and Iceweasel desktop icon works
>> beautifully for me with this change.
>>
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-mozext/iceweasel-branding.git/
> 
> I just checked the Debian Policy Manual on dpkg-divert.  It says "You
> should not use `dpkg-divert' on a file belonging to another package
> without consulting the maintainer of that package first."  Have you done
> this?
> 

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.