sense of packaging firefox' addons?
Arthur Pemberton
pemboa at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 22:20:26 UTC 2008
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:12 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 21:35 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > I saw Ubuntu is puting Firefox' addons to repo.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder why, while Firefox has now integrated search for addons and
> > > > better addons site is planned...
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we should package extensions, but what do you think about
> > > > that situation in U?
> > >
> > > Packaging addons makes perfect sense. As much as does packaging CPAN
> > > modules. You get benefits of a good packaging and update system with
> > > that. Obvious examples are ability to put the addon into repository and
> > > add it to your kickstart, or stay up-to date with security fixes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You take some very bad examples to highlight a need for packing and
> > update system. Both the Firefox addons and CPAN modules already have
> > good mechanisms for this.
>
> They do not. They can never compare with updatesd, can not cooperate
> with it. I am not aware if they integrate with policykit or
> consolehelper to allow unprivileged user to update, not if they
> integrate with puplet to let him know that he has to update.
I don't know about CPAN, but any user can install a Firefox
extension... if you moved it to RPM you would have to block firefox
from doing it itself, or would there be duplicates?
--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list