[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: XULRunner in rawhide

On Nov 14, 2007 2:41 PM, Christopher Aillon <caillon redhat com> wrote:
> Um, did you read the article?  Specifically the "What are we doing?"
> opening text and the third bullet point underneath it?

firefox as shipped in Fedora, isn't what I'm most concerned about.
I'm pretty confident that for firefox in Fedora has a roadmap on how
handle the maintenance burden of a firefox package that diverges from
upstream development over the course of a Fedora release cycle.

What I am really concerned about is the other gecko lib based
applications we have.  xulrunner is a clear win for these applications
but only if the upstream developers for these applications are ready
to make use of xulrunner. We've been talking about xulrunner since F8
testing started.  I would have hoped that the maintainers for
applications that depend on gecko-libs would know by now if the
upstream projects are ready to support xulrunner.

So it really comes down to this. Out of the applications that depend
on gecko-libs in fedora right now, other than firefox, which of those
applications are xulrunner-ready?  And out of the ones that are not,
is upstream development actively working on making their app work with

Worst case scenario is that we are going to get into a situation with
some of these apps where the upstream development does not support
xulrunner and it will be up to our package maintainers to try to make
it work and end up in over their heads keeping up with patches as app
updates are issued.  As a project we need to know about this sort of
potential problem as early in the development cycle as possible.

-jef"if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in DOOOOOOOM"spaleta

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]