Bug#275171: konqueror: Please include "kecko" Gecko layout engine
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:31:49PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> El Mi?rcoles, 6 de Octubre de 2004 16:30, ivan-debian@420.am escribi?:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:07:27PM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> > > El Mi?rcoles, 6 de Octubre de 2004 14:21, ivan-debian@420.am escribi?:
> > > > http://dot.kde.org/1094924433
> > >
> > > If you read the story, you will see that this code relies on Mozilla's
> > > repository, and that is yet unreleased.
> >
> > Yes, I know.
>
> Then why you fill a bugreport against konqueror? (Source: kdebase)
Because to me as a user, this is where I'd see the feature - as an
alternate rendering engine available in Konqueror, built along with
konqueror and other items from kdebase source. I have no opinion on
whether it would be more appropriate to move the bug to kdebase - feel
free to move it if so.
> > > I'm closing this bug because it's invalid.
> >
> > This statement does not follow from the previous ones.
> >
> > This is certainly a valid wishlist bug. Please do not close it until
> > the feature is implemented, presumably after upstreams have made
> > releases with the necessary code.
>
> I closed it because the wishlist is "package kecko", but "kecko" is an
> unreleased software, that maybe never sees the light (like the other gecko
> port that existed),
Again, the unreleased status of the software does NOT mean the wishlist
bug should be closed. It is a reasonable wishlist bug, and the current
state or release status of the implementation is NOT RELEVANT and NOT
justification to close the bug.
(IIRC, the previous gecko port did see the light of day - I seem to
recall a debian package of it for KDE 2.x)
Feel free to retitle this bug to "Please include a Gecko layout engine"
or something along those lines if the specific mention of "kecko" is
what you find inappropriate here.
> and that doesn't have any relation with kdebase.
My impression was that kecko was to be an alternate rendering engine for
the konqueror browser that could be built alongside or as an alternative
to the KTHML engine from KDE source. How does that have no relation to
kdebase?
> > If you don't plan to implement the feature even when it is available
> > upstream, leave it open and tag it wontfix.
>
> Maybe the best solution is reassign it to wnpp and retitle it as a RFP bug.
> Then, if someone wants to package it, it's his/her decision.
My impression is that it would be an option when compiling KDE, not a
standalone package. Hence I filed the bug against the relevant KDE
component (to me as a user, anyway) rather than as an RFP.
If kecko will be _separate_ source package that isn't built from KDE
source, then reassigning to wnpp and retitling as RFP would be
appropriate - but as I said my impression was that it would be a part of
the KDE source (albeit one that depended on Gecko).
> I _think_ is invalid because this software is unreleased,
The unreleased status of the kecko software in no way makes the bug
invalid.
Consider the situation where the kecko software didn't exist at all; a
wishlist bug for gecko renderer support in konqueror would certainly be
appropriate. The fact that some work has actually been done toward this
end but is not yet released does not invalidate the wishlist bug during
the time it takes upstream to implement and release.
> but I'm 99% sure that this isn't a valid wishlist bug
I believe you are incorrect for the reasons stated above.
> _agaisnt konqueror_.
Feel free to reassign to the appropriate KDE package, of course.
--
_ivan
Reply to: