* William Ballard (nospam_40811@alltel.net) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * William Ballard (nospam_40811@alltel.net) wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > > > > mozilla-dev depends on mozilla-browser, but not mozilla. > > > > > > mozilla-browser is 30 megabytes and duplicates the vast majority of > > > firefox > > > > So every program that uses MozEmbed needs two versions, one compiled > > against mozilla and one compiled against firefox? > > No. That's why you have virtual packages. Just like every program > that depends on a java2-runtime doesn't have multiple versions. > > I think that a very large part of mozilla is probably just the > "libraries" and you'd still have a great deal of duplication. > The mozilla or firefox binary is probably only a very thin wrapper > around the libraries; that's what iexplore.exe is. Unfortunately they're not just libraries. They're mostly just dynamic code blobs. They don't have sonames or published APIs. Firefox now tends to fork from the mainline mozilla tree, so the code can be quite different, or at least different enough to make having firefox load the mozilla components quite impossible. So yes there is duplication. Yes, it is unfortunate. Go tell mozilla fellas to make their stuff more modular. -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature