[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: On Mozilla-* updates

> On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:29:46PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> 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.
> in thecase of mozilla this is not entirely true. I don't see any program
> depending on mozilla (and not belonging to the mozilla-family) that
> cannot be made dependant on other browsers.

Let me repeat.
There are lots of sites - especially in non-latin segment of the net - for
which mozilla/firefox is the only free browser that renders those
So mozilla is important by itself, not as a dependency satisfier.

> so it might be possible to write a script or dummy package that only
> integrates an upstream-mozilla in the current debian-system (just like
> those scripts that do the same for sun or ibm jre):
> - user/admin installs mozilla from upstream
> - installs mozilla-dummy
> - runs `gimme-mozilla-upstream --make-it-default-browser`
> - is - more or less - happy.

Such solution seems ok for users (if made similat to msttcorefonts - apt-get
install xxx and things are there). However, things with heavy dependences -
like galeon - probably won't work that way.

And I don't see much difference between this approach and allowing new
upstream versions into stable.

>> >> (2). If binary incompatibility is detected,
>> > 
>> > ... which is most probably going to happen...
>> Do you have enough statistics to make this statement?
> it happened to Mozilla and woody: upstream made mozilla depend on e
> newer libc. There was no way to install a new mozilla on old stable.

Seems that you mix source and binary dependences. It is possible to
recompile against earlier libc. I doubt is used some libc function not
present in earlier libc versions.

>> >> 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.
> this will be, as already has been said, a hard job, should one of these
> packages be one of the core libraries or packages (like libc,
> gnome-something or others).

I'm not suggesting to upload new upstream versions of dependent packages -
I'm assuming that backporting there should me much easier than backpotring
mozilla fixes. Maybe a simple recompile, or a trivial fix. And upstream may
be more friendly.

Reply to: