| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:29:20 -0700 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Why are we using nsbrowser/plugins instead of mozilla/plugins, and how |
| 4 |
>> relalistic would it be to switch to mozilla/plugins? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> --- nsplugins.eclass 1 May 2009 23:03:00 -0000 1.24 |
| 7 |
> +++ nsplugins.eclass 10 Aug 2010 23:21:19 -0000 |
| 8 |
> -PLUGINS_DIR="nsbrowser/plugins" |
| 9 |
> +PLUGINS_DIR="mozilla/plugins" |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You would then need to re-emerge all users of this eclass. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> All I want to ask is why? In fact *most browsers* have no trouble |
| 14 |
> finding plugins, and provide options through which you can inform them |
| 15 |
> where the plugins might be. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What's bugging Chromium? Why does it insist on using a competing |
| 18 |
> browser vendor's name instead of the much more neutral "nsbrowser", |
| 19 |
> which generally denotes browsers with a Netscape style plugin interface? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
indeed. we've been using nsbrowser/plugins literally for 8 years and |
| 22 |
no one has complained. i dont think "mozilla" is an improvement over |
| 23 |
"nsbrowser". |
| 24 |
-mike |
Archives