| 1 |
On 22/10/12 03:52, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jauhien Piatlicki schrieb: |
| 3 |
>> Both firefox and thunderbird have xul library. Before there was a |
| 4 |
>> separate package xulrunner in the tree, but as Mozilla does not |
| 5 |
>> provide it as a separate package now (as far as I remember) both |
| 6 |
>> firefox and thunderbird use there own libxul.so. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That is not correct. Mozilla does provide xulrunner, released in sync |
| 9 |
> with firefox versions: |
| 10 |
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/ |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It was decided some time ago to remove xulrunner from Gentoo (bug 403415). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Please note that I've helped with that bug only to get rid of the |
| 15 |
***ancient vulnerable*** copies of xulrunner from tree |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is actually news to me that they ship separate xulrunner still. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The Gentoo mozilla@ members led me to believe it would need to be |
| 20 |
splitted from Firefox instead -- and that webkit-gtk, webkit-qt, |
| 21 |
spidermonkey, and npapi-sdk would serve the purpose instead. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And well, indeed, we managed to convert into those by only lastriting |
| 24 |
*one* ancient application from tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But if there are still new applications out that still want to use the |
| 27 |
actual libxul and co. I have no objections whatsoever in reintroducing |
| 28 |
it with up-to-date version in tree. However, Gentoo @mozilla team might |
| 29 |
disagree. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>> It seems this is the same library (Or am I wrong?). So may be it |
| 33 |
>> could be splitted into a separate package? (The reason is its |
| 34 |
>> compilation takes a lot of time on week machines and compiling it |
| 35 |
>> one time would be better than twice). Also as far as I can see |
| 36 |
>> xulrunner is splitted into a separate package in Debian and at |
| 37 |
>> least Iceweasel uses it. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Building firefox, thunderbird or seamonkey against xulrunner is |
| 40 |
> possible, but not a supported configuration by Mozilla. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Upstreams know best. Not. Now after hearing all this, it seems the |
| 43 |
mozilla team went wrong direction -- As in, instead of helping to get |
| 44 |
rid of the old xulrunner from tree, I should have been putting my time |
| 45 |
in adding the updated xulrunner to tree... |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
A bit disappointing overall. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
- Samuli |
Archives