On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:30:06PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:47:17PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:18:54AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:58:17PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:50:53PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:27:32PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > > > > > > Package: xulrunner > > > > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be beneficial to unify how xulrunner is packaged across > > > > > > linux > > > > > > distributions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since upstream is unlikely to adapt the debian way of shipping > > > > > > xulrunner for various reasons, we should follow their idea on how to > > > > > > ship xulrunner. > > > > > > > > > > What is their idea on how to ship xulrunner ? > > > > > > > > Like the ubuntu package does it ... just a plain runner in > > > > /usr/lib/xulrunner-VERSION + an sdk which we currently ship in > > > > /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9a8/ using static glue et al ... you > > > > probably know the details. > > > > > > There is no way we're going to use a static glue for embedding > > > applications. > > > And I'm not really convinced by the -VERSION thing. > > > > > > > Why? works pretty well from what i have seen so far. > > What does work pretty well ? the -VERSION thing ? It's not about working > or not, it's about the fact we're only shipping one version at a time. > What is the usefulness of the -VERSION for us ? If people want to > install an upstream, they obviously won't put it in /usr/lib/xulrunner, > so it's not a problem to use it. Moreover, if they want to install an > upstream version, they are likely to want to put it in > /usr/lib/xulrunner-VERSION, and THEN there will be a problem because > some other package would depend on THAT being the debian version... > > If you're talking about the static glue, it's not about it working or > not, it's about the fact that if it's statically compiled, we'd have to > have all reverse dependencies buildNMUed if there happens to be issues > with the glue. That's bad. >
How about shipping like ubuntu, and then switching to a shared glue, once you have a suitable patch? We could even upload as xulrunner-1.9 so the transition could take some time. But having something in sid now would be beneficial imo. For the question about the versioned pkglibdir ... why do you want to drop the versioning from the pkglibdir? I mean, usually one shouldn't ask: why to not diverge from upstream, but instead review the arguments that led to the current diff. Given that -rpath linking isn't the way to go anymore, I don't see any benefit out of shipping a non-versioned dir. - Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
