Re: On Mozilla-* updates
>> > Mozilla and even Galeon are not an essential parts of debian -
>> > alternatives exists (Konqueror, links, lynx, w3m, etc) Not shipping 'em
>> > will hardly restrict debian users in their everyday life.
>>
>> It will.
>> There is a large number of sites that mozilla renders correctly, while
>> other listed browsers don't, especially in non-latin segment of the net.
>
> So, you really think, the must to install mozilla form external sources
> restrict their users in their everyday life?
> There a a lot of distributionen out there and debian stable is certainly
> not targeting newbies like Knoppix, or suse is doing.
I can't disagree that theoretically this is not restriction.
However, if we go this way, logical consequence is to drop the distribution
completely and just install everything from upstream.
Strong point of Debian is that is provides a way for users to get a
consistent system in an easy way (and in this field it is better than suse
or whatever, and this is the exact reason why it is better even for newbies
- if they are going to go a few steps further than initial system
installation).
Requiring users to install an important component (which Mozilla is) from
other sources is a bad idea in this context. I think it should not be the
way how Debian solves it's problems.
> There won't be _any_ Debian solution with the current mozilla.org policy.
Not exactly. Correct statement is, '... with the current mozilla.org policy
AND Debian traditional way of doing things'.
I agree with this statement.
I see the problem.
The question is - how to solve it.
Mozilla.org policy is probably out of our control.
However, our way of doing things is not.
You suggest - let's stop providing mozilla (and all dependent packages).
So packages that almost all Debian users use will go outside of Debian.
I think - it is better to tune our way to do things to keep with real life
[in form of mozilla.org policy] and still provide our users with consistent
system with minimal effort from their side.
>> Something like the following:
>> (1). A new upstream mozilla should be uploaded to some location that all
>> stable users are strongly advised to have in their sources.list [maybe
>> security.d.o. maybe proposed-updates],
>
> Well, well, well, you cannot just put upstream versions into stable as you
> might to with unstable. That's quite naive.
Why?
What exactly makes it impossible to change our habbits and allow new
upstream version into stable _in_ _rare_ _cases_ _when_ _there_ _is_ _no_
_other_ _way_ _to_ _provide_ a HUGE-USED set of packages? Remember,
"debian supports it's users"!
>> (2). If binary incompatibility is detected,
>
> ... which is most probably going to happen...
Do you have enough statistics to make this statement?
>> these packages should conflict
>> with incompatible versions of all packages in Debian that depend on
>
> So you provide mozilla, but throw out other packages away?
Of course no. We should provide upgrades for all packages in the set at the
same time.
> I see no reason
> for doing so. You argue, that removing packages from will hurt users and
> should not be done.... now you are doing same.
No. See above.
>> packages being uploaded, and a compatible version of these packages
>> should be uploaded to the same location.
>
> That I'll might lead to the scenario I pointed out already. You might
> going to have two different versions of gnome in stable, maintained at the
> same time. Consider the chaos and amount of work.
Why thing in stable can't be just recompiled to match updated ABIs? Do APIs
also change in incompatible ways? Is galeon (and other related packages)
upstream also uncooperative as mozilla upstream?
>
>> (3). If binary incompatibility is detected later (so only (1) was done
>> and not (2)), a new upload should happen with both (1) and (2).
>
> I don't think, that this is going to work.
I think it will. At least, the opposite can't be stated before any
estimation of needed effort was done.
Nikita
Reply to: