Bug#520661: O: xulrunner -- XUL + XPCOM application runner
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:41:16AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>
> retitle 520661 O: xulrunner -- XUL + XPCOM application runner
> thanks
>
> orphaning back in case fresh blood wants to work on this.
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:35:53AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:17:31AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > >
> > > retitle 520661 ITA: xulrunner -- XUL + XPCOM application runner
> > > owner 520661 asac@debian.org
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 06:43:41PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Package: wnpp
> > > > Severity: normal
> > > >
> > > > See the great thread about "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" on
> > > > debian-devel to understand why.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have not read through mail archive to understand why this triggered
> > > your move, but for now I take the ITA for this package ... could be
> > > that i jump off after reading that thread for sure :).
> > >
> > > Can you make your git tree public somewhere so that the transition
> > > will be technically more or less seemless?
> >
> > I'm not sure this is a good idea you jump in on xulrunner. Because that
> > would mean more work for you, and I know you already have enough work,
> > and that would also mean the mozilla team would basically not grow.
> >
> > Moreover, I'm not sure I will be able to keep my promise of actually
> > stopping to maintain it...
> >
>
> dude, if thats the case then don't orphan it :) ... or at least tell
> me offline that you want to use this O: to attract contributors rather
> than giving it away.
>
> In the end I still have the dream to eliminate one huge duplication of
> work - which xulrunner is imo. If we could share sources packages here
> and there it would be a huge win imo.
xulrunner is all but a duplication of work. It's even the contrary! At
most, it is a duplication of source tarball.
Mike
Reply to: