Re: xulrunner 1.9.2 into sid?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:57:20 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:57:32AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > and engage in poor supportability/secuirity practices (using embedded
> > code copies instead of system libraries) . This path is
> > unnacceptable for Debian.
> > In my personal opinion, the only viable option left is to drop all
> > mozilla and mozilla-depending packages from main
> > [...]
> > Losing mozilla wouldn't be that significant of an loss since there
> > are plenty of other good options nowadays (webkit, konquerer, chromium,
> > etc.), which wasn't the case a year or so ago.
> Wait, wait... you promote webkit-based browsers, every single of which
> embeds the complete webkit codebase -- while you name exactly that issue as
> the reason why Ubuntu's approach to xulrunner is unacceptable. Hmm...
> Yeah, indeed that approach is bad, but that's a reason to remove chromium
> and konqueror which do use it, not iceweasel which doesn't.
Like I said, that is hopefully just a temporary problem and will be
fixed following the squeeze release. To clarify my point, it will be
easier to support six forks of the same codebase rather than six forks
of the same codebase plus a completely separate codebase as well
(especially when those six forks are roughly feature-equivalent to the
> Also, Chromium doesn't support even the base essentials, like working
> AdBlock or sane cookie handling. And Konqueror is just a bad joke,
> barely better than Dillo or Amaya (no, not the DD).
It's open source (and in rapid development); if these are features
interest you then them or pay someone to do it for you.
> So your proposal would remove the only reasonably featured browser from
No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.