Re: xulrunner 1.9.2 into sid?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:31:09 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
> > >
> > > Same question as for Md with volatile:
> > >
> > > apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2
> > >
> > > What do you do with these packages ? backports too ? Do you realize some
> > > of these are part of the core of the GNOME desktop ?
> >
> > Yes, I would say drop them all. The maintainer should be free to
> > choose whether they want to continue to support the package in
> > backports, convert the backend to use webkit, or to drop the package
> > altogether.
> >
> > Which of those are gnome core packages? Only liferea, galeon,
> > evolution-rss, and yelp stick out to me, but I don't use gnome. Yelp
> > has a webkit backend, so the mozilla backend could be disabled.
> >
> > > Also, using backports doesn't magically solve the issue that all these
> > > package need to be updated when there is a new ABI/API (which basically is
> > > the case with major xulrunner versions)
> >
> > I agree, anyone planning to maintain those packages in backports will
> > indeed have to suffer through that, but it's just the fact of life
> > with mozilla.
>
> Seeing how many problems there still are with webkit backed GNOME
> applications, that sure is only a mozilla problem...
Apologies, I should have said that was a "fact of life for any abi/api
transition", so there is nothing special about a mozilla transition
(except that it touches a lot of packages) whether or not its in
backports or elsewhere.
Mike
Reply to: