hi,
I noticed, xulrunner was successfully built for devel (finally), but I see there one issue - it obsoletes firefox < 2.1 but it does not supply it's functionality (unless you use only the libraries, like in epiphany, liferea, etc.). If I understand it correctly it means that tomorrow's rawhide will have a lot of dependency problems (new gecko-libs and removal of firefox) and on systems that don't have any packages dependent on firefox or gecko-libs even a removal of firefox. This isn't intended, is it? Or do you have already prepared firefox 3 (still alpha) for rawhide? An easy solution to this, IMHO, would be removal of the obsolete from xulrunner and removal of the gre(64).conf file from firefox package (it clashes with xulrunner's).
Thanks, Martin
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:20 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I noticed, xulrunner was successfully built for devel (finally), but I see there one issue - it obsoletes firefox < 2.1 but it does not supply it's functionality (unless you use only the libraries, like in epiphany, liferea, etc.). If I understand it correctly it means that tomorrow's rawhide will have a lot of dependency problems (new gecko-libs and removal of firefox) and on systems that don't have any packages dependent on firefox or gecko-libs even a removal of firefox. This isn't intended, is it? Or do you have already prepared firefox 3 (still alpha) for rawhide? An easy solution to this, IMHO, would be removal of the obsolete from xulrunner and removal of the gre(64).conf file from firefox package (it clashes with xulrunner's).
My understanding of this matter is that anything which depends on Gecko should be depending on gecko-devel (at build-time) and/or gecko-libs (at run-time).
These virtuals are provided by both the Firefox and XULrunner packages, and therefore should allow smoothly upgrading from the former to the latter.
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:54 +0200, Peter Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:20 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I noticed, xulrunner was successfully built for devel (finally), but I see there one issue - it obsoletes firefox < 2.1 but it does not supply it's functionality (unless you use only the libraries, like in epiphany, liferea, etc.). If I understand it correctly it means that tomorrow's rawhide will have a lot of dependency problems (new gecko-libs and removal of firefox) and on systems that don't have any packages dependent on firefox or gecko-libs even a removal of firefox. This isn't intended, is it? Or do you have already prepared firefox 3 (still alpha) for rawhide? An easy solution to this, IMHO, would be removal of the obsolete from xulrunner and removal of the gre(64).conf file from firefox package (it clashes with xulrunner's).
My understanding of this matter is that anything which depends on Gecko should be depending on gecko-devel (at build-time) and/or gecko-libs (at run-time).
These virtuals are provided by both the Firefox and XULrunner packages, and therefore should allow smoothly upgrading from the former to the latter. --
This is the problem with broken deps (most of them will be solved just by rebuild or with slight changes to their spec files or if they do not have support for xulrunner yet then with some, mostly easy, patches), but there is the problem with obsoletes, too. Because xulrunner obsoletes firefox < 2.1, firefox will be removed during yum update, won't it?
Martin
Martin Sourada wrote:
This is the problem with broken deps (most of them will be solved just by rebuild or with slight changes to their spec files or if they do not have support for xulrunner yet then with some, mostly easy, patches), but there is the problem with obsoletes, too. Because xulrunner obsoletes firefox < 2.1, firefox will be removed during yum update, won't it?
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
I'll discus that with Chris Aillon next week (he's taking a vacation this week), he's the original submitter of that feature and xulrunner owner.
martin
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:33 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
This is the problem with broken deps (most of them will be solved just by rebuild or with slight changes to their spec files or if they do not have support for xulrunner yet then with some, mostly easy, patches), but there is the problem with obsoletes, too. Because xulrunner obsoletes firefox < 2.1, firefox will be removed during yum update, won't it?
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
I'll discus that with Chris Aillon next week (he's taking a vacation this week), he's the original submitter of that feature and xulrunner owner.
Hey Martin,
I believe caillon is off until the end of the month (I could be wrong of course). Anyway, you might want to try and catch him on irc earlier, since we should try to get all the rebuilds against xulrunner done before test3, ie before next Tuesday...
Kudos on getting it built, btw.
Aha, okay. I'll try to catch him asap.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Hey Martin,
I believe caillon is off until the end of the month (I could be wrong of course). Anyway, you might want to try and catch him on irc earlier, since we should try to get all the rebuilds against xulrunner done before test3, ie before next Tuesday...
Kudos on getting it built, btw.
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:33 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
AFAIK, the gecko-lib provides should not be a problem. The only problem I am aware of is that both firefox and xulrunner packages have /etc/gre.d/gre(64).conf files.
Martin
I'll discus that with Chris Aillon next week (he's taking a vacation this week), he's the original submitter of that feature and xulrunner owner.
martin
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 09:03 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:33 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
AFAIK, the gecko-lib provides should not be a problem. The only problem I am aware of is that both firefox and xulrunner packages have /etc/gre.d/gre(64).conf files.
Can't firefox be cut down so that it doesn't include it's own gecko-libs but instead uses xulrunner so that it's just like any other gecko app (Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with xulrunner so don't shoot me)? --
Richi Plana
Richi Plana wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 09:03 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:33 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
AFAIK, the gecko-lib provides should not be a problem. The only problem I am aware of is that both firefox and xulrunner packages have /etc/gre.d/gre(64).conf files.
Can't firefox be cut down so that it doesn't include it's own gecko-libs but instead uses xulrunner so that it's just like any other gecko app (Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with xulrunner so don't shoot me)?
That's the plan.
Rahul
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:01:44 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Can't firefox be cut down so that it doesn't include it's own gecko-libs but instead uses xulrunner so that it's just like any other gecko app (Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with xulrunner so don't shoot me)?
That's the plan.
But IIRC not for F8. Firefox isn't ready for that IIRC.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Richi Plana wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 09:03 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:33 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
Both packages (firefox and xulrunner) provides gecko-libs and currently can't be installed together.
AFAIK, the gecko-lib provides should not be a problem. The only problem I am aware of is that both firefox and xulrunner packages have /etc/gre.d/gre(64).conf files.
Can't firefox be cut down so that it doesn't include it's own gecko-libs but instead uses xulrunner so that it's just like any other gecko app (Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with xulrunner so don't shoot me)?
That's the plan.
If I understood the discussion regarding xulrunner correctly the whole reason the Mozilla people aren't shipping a xulrunner based version of Firefox is because they don't want to be limited by a runtime that needs to be stable rather than cutting edge. If Fedora plans to ship a xulrunner based Firefox anyway wouldn't that basically require a fork of the code?
Regards, Dennis
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
If I understood the discussion regarding xulrunner correctly the whole reason the Mozilla people aren't shipping a xulrunner based version of Firefox is because they don't want to be limited by a runtime that needs to be stable rather than cutting edge. If Fedora plans to ship a xulrunner based Firefox anyway wouldn't that basically require a fork of the code?
Christopher Aillon is currently on vacation and this was my understanding based on the earlier IRC discussion we had. I guess he has to return to confirm and answer your question on this. I don't think we are forking anything.
Rahul
-
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
Jesse Keating -
Martin Sourada -
Martin Stransky -
Matthias Clasen -
Peter Gordon -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richi Plana