Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi > > As you may or may not know, I'm currently working on packaging > xulrunner, which is ought to be the central point for all future mozilla > technology, meaning that at more or less long term, all mozilla products > (firefox, thunderbird, etc.) will be built on top of it. > That will be indeed a great improvment in both memory (who really wants > to have libraries loaded twice just because you run 2 of their programs) > and security management. > > Anyways, the mid-term plan would be to migrate the applications that use > mozilla as a platform (such as epiphany, galeon, kazehakase, etc.) to > build on top of xulrunner (libxul, actually) instead of the current > mozilla, and instead of having a firefox-dev package as requested in > #322521. > > I'd like to make everybody's life easier, and would like to improve the > current situation, but I'd like some feedback on my ideas, to know if my > solutions are the proper ones or if I should explore some other ways. > > Nowadays, when the mozilla ABI breaks, which happens quite often (though > it is supposed to get better in the future), all the epiphany, galeon > and friends break and need rebuilding with the newer mozilla (if there's > no API breakage at the same time, in which case some changes are needed > in the programs). > > In the current situation, the dependencies are quite useless. We can't > really stick to a strict dependency, which would be painful (every new > upload of mozilla would need a rebuild of its reverse dependencies), and > we can't set a >= dependency either, because of the breakage. > > So my idea is the following : > - First, I want to provide the libs with a correct soname. It won't be > compatible with upstream until some people use clue sticks, but i'll do > my best for them to improve on that point. Having a correct soname will > enable us to actually use the shlibs mecanism. > > - Now, the problem is that we can't really use the sonames correctly, > because if we succeed in the clue stick batting, we'll have different > sonames, which, in the long term, would be painful. So, I'd like to > provide a dummy gecko-x.y-serial or such package, which would correctly > depend on the libxul package (with strict version if necessary), and the > .shlibs in the libxul-dev package would say to depend on the > gecko-x.y-serial package. > Assuming this is otherwise fine, wouldn't it be better to do what apt does. Namely have gecko-x.y-serial be a virtual package provided by libxul. Travis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature