clone 413964 -1 reassign -1 classpath thanks On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:26:59PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:07:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> 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. > > At this time, we don't know which other third-party application rely on > this specific xulrunner configuration, and I really don't want to risk > to break anything else. It's easier to revert this change for xulrunner > now instead of testing every possible r-dep.
I checked all reverse dependencies that use the -plugin pkg-config file. Only gcj-4.1 and classpath are affected. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
