On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:30:49PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:37:49PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > If the gcj plugin is making use of xpcom, it should require > > > xulrunner-xpcom > > > too.
> > > See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366113#c8 > > Still, this is an 11th-hour regression introduced by the new xulrunner, > > AFAICS. Even if the "bug" belongs to gcj-4.1, this change in xulrunner's > > behavior is grounds for not letting the new xulrunner into etch. Security > > updates need to not break related packages. > So what ? Better "fixing" xulrunner than gcj-4.1 ? This gets ridiculous. "Better" is not the issue. You can't have a security update breaking reverse-dependencies, regardless of "fault". So either gcj-4.1 and classpath need to be fixed to work with the new xulrunner, or xulrunner's bugs need to be fixed without coupling them to a behavior change that breaks the other packages. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
