Re: What should we do with iceweasel/xulrunner/libmozjs?
Mike Hommey wrote:
> - Push 3.6 to unstable and the last 4.0 betas/rc to experimental. Push
> 4.0 to unstable when it's out.
That would be my favourite.
I use Conkeror (which is a XULRunner application and hence depends on
xulrunner) with 3.6 since it is in experimental and it works without
problems since a year or so. Ubuntu has the Debian package with just
slight modification of some defaults together with xulrunner-1.9.2 in
Lucid 10.04 LTS. They just had to backport a few upstream fixes.
OTOH since my upstream announced 4.0 compatibility a lot has changed
in 4.0 (sic!) and the last time I tried it, it seemed to make quite
some problems. Will check again the current state of the packages in
the mozilla.d.n repo (and later experimental).
> Cons: More work for reverse dependencies, which would be made to build
> and work with 3.6 and then again with 4.0 in a few weeks.
No problem for me. In the contrary, I'd be glad if 4.0 doesn't hit
> - Keep things the way they are (3.5 in unstable, 3.6 in experimental,
> 4.0 betas on mozilla.debian.net), and upload 4.0 to unstable once it's
> - Keep 3.5 in unstable, 3.6 in experimental, and push 4.0 to experimental
> when it's released.
I think 3.6 should go to unstable and replace 3.5 as soon as poosible,
so these options look like heading backwards.
> Cons: We lose version 3.6, which has several advantages over 3.5, and
> keep 3.5, which is already very outdated.
Right. That's why I want to see 3.6 in unstable as soon as possible
independently of the state of 4.0.
,''`. | Axel Beckert <email@example.com>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5