On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:31:09 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:06:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:29:20 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:24:00AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports. > > > > > > Same question as for Md with volatile: > > > > > > apt-cache rdepends xulrunner-1.9.1 libmozjs2d libwebkit-1.0-2 > > > > > > What do you do with these packages ? backports too ? Do you realize some > > > of these are part of the core of the GNOME desktop ? > > > > Yes, I would say drop them all. The maintainer should be free to > > choose whether they want to continue to support the package in > > backports, convert the backend to use webkit, or to drop the package > > altogether. > > > > Which of those are gnome core packages? Only liferea, galeon, > > evolution-rss, and yelp stick out to me, but I don't use gnome. Yelp > > has a webkit backend, so the mozilla backend could be disabled. > > > > > Also, using backports doesn't magically solve the issue that all these > > > package need to be updated when there is a new ABI/API (which basically is > > > the case with major xulrunner versions) > > > > I agree, anyone planning to maintain those packages in backports will > > indeed have to suffer through that, but it's just the fact of life > > with mozilla. > > Seeing how many problems there still are with webkit backed GNOME > applications, that sure is only a mozilla problem...
Apologies, I should have said that was a "fact of life for any abi/api transition", so there is nothing special about a mozilla transition (except that it touches a lot of packages) whether or not its in backports or elsewhere. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
