Why doesn't Canonical update Thunderbird to version 38?

Question

So today I saw Canonical finally released a new version of Thunderbird. But instead of the latest version 38, it updated to 31.8.0. I thought Canonical decided to always update to the latest version for Firefox and Thunderbird? I am just curious to why they suddenly decided not to.

I am asking this because the new 38 version has some cool new features that I acutally waited for quiet some time now.

Answer 1

This answer focusses on the conceptual question: Why has Canonical made this decision?

It doesn’t suggest workarounds for the decisions Canonical has made. Those have already been given in another answer.

---

There are generally two ways for a downstream distributor (like Canonical) to deal with upstream releases.

1. Simply pass the new release on to the consumer.
2. Pass on only security fixes to the consumer.

For most packages, the second option is preferred. That keeps things stable. If Ubuntu passed on the latest PHP to me, my PHP scripts might suddenly stop working, because the syntax is slightly different in the latest version. On the other hand, if they passed on nothing at all, I might be vulnerable to attacks. So they pass on the security fixes only. That’s why my PHP version is PHP 5.6.4-4ubuntu6.2: it has the syntax of PHP 5.6.4, but also has some Ubuntu-specific tweaks when they’ve taken security fixes from later versions of PHP and put them into this version. This is known as backporting, and is the usual method. I’ll get a new version of PHP only when I update to a new version of Ubuntu.

That makes sense for a scripting language like PHP. You can see why I’d want stability. The latest version has slightly different syntax which might break existing scripts. For a desktop program like Thunderbird, however, there’s more debate about which method is preferable.

• Some people prefer stability. The new version of Thunderbird might have a different user interface, which they don’t want to have to learn.
• On the other hand, some people want those new features, and don’t see why they should have to wait for a new version of Ubuntu before they get a new version of Thunderbird.

It’s a balancing act. Consider also this:

• Backporting security fixes is a lot of work for the Ubuntu team: it’s probably easier for them just to pass on the entire update.

For Firefox, Ubuntu does pass on the latest releases. The decision on whether to do this or to backport security fixes only is made on a case-by-case basis.

Another thing to consider is this: Different people want different things. Some people want stability and security fixes only, no changes in behaviour. Others want the latest and greatest new features. If Ubuntu’s repos work for the former crowd, the latter can always go directly to the source and get the latest stuff from there. However, if Ubuntu’s repos cater to the latter crowd, the former have nowhere to go, and are likely to end up just running old software with no updates, not even security updates. As such, it makes sense for Ubuntu to provide stability and backported security fixes for most packages.

Answer 2

The main repo won't likely be updated unless it needs to be for security fixes. The only reason it's seemed that Canonical always updates to the latest, is that Mozilla has released security fixes in newer versions and it was deemed worth any potential trouble they might have with a brand new version to get those fixes. If there are major changes made in later versions but security fixes can be applied to the existing version, that's what you're going to get.