On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:51:09AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > The problem of dropping Iceape is that it provides a Xulrunner -dev package, > > iceape-dev, based on Xulrunner 1.8, while Xulrunner in Lenny (the one that > > uhm, wasn't the rationale for using iceape-dev the xulrunner 1.9 transition? > E.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-openoffice/2008/05/msg00008.html. That > mail clearly says "use iceape-dev"...
The rationale for still using iceape-dev is that xpcom components would still need to run properly under iceape. For that to be possible, they have to be compiled under gecko 1.8, which only iceape provides. If we remove iceape, we don't care about this compatibility anymore. On the other hand, not all applications necessarily have been updated upstream to properly build against gecko 1.9. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
