Petteri Räty wrote: [Tue Oct 18 2005, 03:39:04PM EDT]
> Maybe there should also be a mention in gwn next week and the change
> would then be committed on for example next tuesday.
It's already done. The ebuilds still honor USE=browserplugin but they
give a warning. Also the flag is marked as
Aron Griffis wrote:
> Thomas Matthijs wrote:[Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
>
>>You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
>>Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
>
>
> All set. The only place browserplugin is mentioned is in the
> Chang
Thomas Matthijs wrote: [Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
> You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
> Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
All set. The only place browserplugin is mentioned is in the
ChangeLogs.
Regards,
Aron
--
Aron Griffis
G
Thomas Matthijs wrote:
> * Aron Griffis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the
>>USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change. During
>>the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing
>>USE=nsplugin
Thomas Matthijs wrote: [Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
We had discussed it prior and then nobody seemed to object to
browserplugin, only after we changed it.
Actually that's not true.
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
You see that karltk said he would be
* Aron Griffis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the
> USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change. During
> the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing
> USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
>
> h
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:52:05PM +0200, dju` wrote:
> Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over browserplugin?
> Aren't there any package that might provide plugins for
> non-netscape-based browsers?
Yes, that's the exact reason for chosing nsplugin over browserplugin:
the latter
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:52 +0200, dju` wrote:
> > Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over
> > browserplugin?
This may not be a particularly _good_ reason, but "nsplugin" is already
an accepted global USE flag.
> At any rate, it is pr
On Monday 17 October 2005 23:14, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Actually, I think it is plugin-compatible with netscape, not necessarily
> netscape-based. For example, Konquerer can use the same plugins. At
> any rate, it is probably best to think about this now, hence using
> nsplugin, rather than la
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:52 +0200, dju` wrote:
> Hanno Böck wrote:
> > Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
> > For now, the situation in the tree is :
> > - java-stuff uses browserplugin
> > - acroread uses noplugin
> > - helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin
Hanno Böck wrote:
Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
For now, the situation in the tree is :
- java-stuff uses browserplugin
- acroread uses noplugin
- helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin
Probably a silly question, but why choose nsplugin over browserpl
Aron Griffis wrote:
> Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the
> USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change. During
> the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing
> USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
>
> http://www.mail-archive
On 10/17/05, Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from
> use.local.desc. Comments?
Thank you for proposing it. Will solve the current confusion.
Please go ahead and
Chris Gianelloni wrote:[Mon Oct 17 2005, 03:21:35PM EDT]
> Agreed 100%. USE=mozilla shouldn't be used for plugins when we already
> have a perfectly good USE flag for it.
Thanks, but that's not the point. The point is to switch them from
using the local USE=browserplugin to using the existing gl
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 14:50 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from
> use.local.desc. Comments?
Agreed 100%. USE=mozilla shouldn't be used for plugins when we already
have
Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the
USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change. During
the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing
USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Before this discussion sleeps, what should be the conclusion?
For now, the situation in the tree is :
- java-stuff uses browserplugin
- acroread uses noplugin
- helixplayer/realplayer/vlc/gxine/djvu use nsplugin
That's not good!
As most people voted for nsplugin, I suggest the following:
- Change
17 matches
Mail list logo
