Re: RFS: firefox-greasemonkey
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Michael Spang wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >1) You're just providing the xpi file instead of building it from
> >the individual source packages which are present in the upstream
> As far as I can see, releases are distributed only as XPInstall
> archives. The upstream source is kept only in CVS, which seems
> suboptimal to me.
That happens quite a bit in the cases of upstreams who aren't used to
dealing with distributions, unfortunatly. I suggest you communicate
with them and request that they also distribute tarballs of the source
when they make a release.
> Especially since cvs seems to hang if I attempt anything other than
> a checkout from this repository while using the provided guest
That's fine, you can make that the orig.tar.gz
> I understand that not having the idl files for the XPCOM components
> is a concern with this approach. Are there any other reasons why
> this is a problem?
1) You can't easily patch any of the files in the xpi
2) You're not directly distributing the source
3) Upstream's build process is totally different from yours.
4) Security fixes are very, very difficult to do because of #1-3.
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
-- John Brown, DEA Chief