| 1 |
On 21 October 2012 18:14, Jauhien Piatlicki <jpiatlicki@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> May be a stupid question, but |
| 4 |
> Both firefox and thunderbird have xul library. Before there was a |
| 5 |
> separate package xulrunner in the tree, but as Mozilla does not provide |
| 6 |
> it as a separate package now (as far as I remember) both firefox and |
| 7 |
> thunderbird use there own libxul.so. It seems this is the same library |
| 8 |
> (Or am I wrong?). So may be it could be splitted into a separate |
| 9 |
> package? (The reason is its compilation takes a lot of time on week |
| 10 |
> machines and compiling it one time would be better than twice). Also as |
| 11 |
> far as I can see xulrunner is splitted into a separate package in Debian |
| 12 |
> and at least Iceweasel uses it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Jauhien |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
AFAIK, building Firefox and Thunderbird (and let's throw Seamonkey in |
| 18 |
there while we're at it) against a shared libxul is considered |
| 19 |
unsupported by upstream, which is why we do not do it. If compile |
| 20 |
times of mozilla products are annoying for you, feel free to try the |
| 21 |
-bin variants instead (firefox-bin, thunderbird-bin, seamonkey-bin). |
| 22 |
The dependencies aren't too crazy, they work pretty well, they get |
| 23 |
stabilised at the exact same time as the source packages and I try to |
| 24 |
bump them as quickly as or quicker than the source builds. |
Archives