Hi, On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:24AM -0000, Cesare Tirabassi wrote: > Personally, I don't think that www browsers should be made recommendations and > not dependencies. > Let me quote the debian policy: > > The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required > for the depending package to provide a significant amount of > functionality. > > While: > > The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together > with this one in all but unusual installations. > > Now, I hope you agree that to provide a significant amount of > functionality for this plugin a www browser is needed? > > Whether it makes sense or not to add xulrunner to the list of dependancies > (or-ed!) its a matter of testing it. > For instance, I have not added it to gecko-mediaplayer yet (from the same > upstream author) simply because I don't have any evidence that it will work. > Just the fact that it makes sense that it works is not enough (for instance > gecko-mediaplayer should work with Opera and Konqueror, but it doesn't). > Can you perhaps test it and confirm if the mozilla-mplayer works with xul > based applications (via xulrunner)?
I've tested it. It works. Why should plugin-browser combinations have to be tested by package maintainers? That just doesn't seem very fair to users that want to use a less popular browser. They'll end up waiting a release or two before the dependencies will be in their favor. I guess it'd be nice if it could Depend: gecko-browser ... -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net -- mozilla-mplayer unnecessarily depends on gecko browsers https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/137993 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
