Last Comment Bug 615530 - Update .bt entry in PSL
: Update .bt entry in PSL
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: Networking: Domain Lists (show other bugs)
: unspecified
: All All
-- normal with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Gervase Markham [:gerv]
: Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2010-11-30 06:17 PST by Gervase Markham [:gerv]
Modified: 2011-03-16 09:48 PDT (History)
3 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---

Patch from .bt registry (361 bytes, patch)
2010-11-30 06:18 PST, Gervase Markham [:gerv]
jst: approval2.0+
dveditz: approval1.9.2.17+
dveditz: approval1.9.1.19+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Description User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2010-11-30 06:17:28 PST

Comment 1 User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2010-11-30 06:18:23 PST
<sigh> Oops. Here's the initial comment:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Greetings from Bhutan.

I am a system administrator working in DrukNet, under Bhutan Telecom. We
are an ISP (owned by the government of Bhutan) and we are also
responsible for .bt ccTLD.

It recently came to my notice that the suffix list for .bt ccTLD has
never been updated. In fact, not submitted by DrukNet at all. Therefore,
I have attached a unified diff of the changes that needs to be made to
the .bt siffix list.
We have had people complaining about cookie problem with some of the web
browsers while browsing some of the .bt domains.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Best regards
Lungten Wangchuk 
DrukNet (ISP Division) 
Bhutan Telecom 
2/28 Drophen Lam
Comment 2 User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2010-11-30 06:18:59 PST
Created attachment 493961 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch from .bt registry
Comment 3 User image Patrick 2010-12-05 15:41:02 PST
Sorry to ask such questions here - I guess it must be obvious somehow. But still then, I just wonder: What is the use of this bug? Aren't all the facts clear and simple? You apply the patch - done. What am I missing? Can you provide a link to some kind of policy document that requires the bug to be created? How long will it "exists" here until it gets fixed? Wouldn't it have been easier to to apply the patch then to open a bug? :-)
Comment 4 User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2010-12-09 12:41:58 PST
We have bugs to track all changes. I just need to get around to checking it in (which is non-trivial, because the tree is often closed these days).

Comment 5 User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2010-12-09 12:44:21 PST
Comment on attachment 493961 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch from .bt registry

Requesting approval.

Comment 6 User image Patrick 2010-12-09 13:05:17 PST
Sorry again ... :-) by now I realize that the file .dat file seems to actually be part of the mozilla/firefox source tree and I can in that case understand...

I was imagining that the file would somehow be in a repository of its own under and that it would then be automatically "imported" for each mozilla/firefox build by the build scripts (with the public key of beeing part of the mozilla source tree and the file signature beeing checked automatically or something like that...)

Too much fantastic thinking on my side...! :-) Be it the way it is.
Comment 7 User image Patrick 2011-01-17 01:40:10 PST
Would be nice if this could make it into firefox 4 ... any chance ?
Comment 8 User image Gervase Markham [:gerv] 2011-01-27 07:10:07 PST

Comment 9 User image Daniel Veditz [:dveditz] 2011-01-28 10:13:33 PST
Comment on attachment 493961 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch from .bt registry

approved for and, a=dveditz for release-drivers

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.