Hi,
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote (22 Dec 2011 21:36:59 GMT) :
> #653003: xul-ext-requestpolicy: Need update for Iceweasel/Firefox 9
> It has been closed by Fabrizio Regalli <fab...@fabreg.it>.
Thank you for taking care of this.
> +- <em:maxVersion>9.0a1</em:maxVersion>
> ++ <em:maxVersion>*</em:maxVersion>
I'm a bit surprised this bug was fixed by optimistically betting the
extension will work with any future iceweasel version; I understood
the introduction of ${xpi:Breaks} as a way to express in a more formal
and strict way the guaranteed fact that "extension X works fine with
this set of versions of iceweasel"; therefore, the s/9\.0a1/*/ patch
introduced in requestpolicy/0.5.23-3 seems like a step backward to me.
So this makes me curious: is that commonly considered good practice
among the Debian Mozilla Extension team? Do we patch other XUL
extensions this way in Debian? Is there a project of doing this
consistently to all XUL extensions packaged in Debian, or merely to go
on doing this on a case by case basis, only when needed?
Cheers,
--
intrigeri <intrig...@boum.org>
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
| The impossible just takes a bit longer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
