rpm packages of thunderbird/firefox extensions

[Orion Poplawski]

Is it possible to create rpm packages of thunderbird and firefox 
extensions?  I'd like to install some global extensions on each of our 
machines and I'd prefer to have rpms, but not sure how it would interact 
with or replace the -install-global-extension option.  Perhaps 
fedora-packaging is a better place to ask?

It might be nice for fedora extras to be able to provide extensions as well.

[Aaron Kurtz]

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 16:00 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>  Is it possible to create rpm packages of thunderbird and firefox 
>  extensions?  I'd like to install some global extensions on each of our 
>  machines and I'd prefer to have rpms, but not sure how it would interact 
>  with or replace the -install-global-extension option.  Perhaps 
>  fedora-packaging is a better place to ask? 
Yes, it's possible. Debian provides extension packages, and ALTLinux
http://www.altlinux.com/ provides extension RPMs. I found this page on
Debian packaging helpful
http://glandium.org/debian/packages/mozilla-firefox/New_scheme_for_extens...
while ALTLinux uses macros available in their firefox-devel package under
/etc/rpm/macros.d/ 

>  It might be nice for fedora extras to be able to provide extensions
> as well. 
It won't happen until people come forward and offer to do it. Do you
have some free time?
-- 
Aaron Kurtz <a.kurtz(a)hardsun.net&gt;

[Christopher Aillon]

On 06/23/2005 06:00 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>  Is it possible to create rpm packages of thunderbird and firefox 
>  extensions?  I'd like to install some global extensions on each of our 
>  machines and I'd prefer to have rpms, but not sure how it would interact 
>  with or replace the -install-global-extension option.  Perhaps 
>  fedora-packaging is a better place to ask? 

Is it possible?  Yes.  Is it easy?  Not really, due to the way that the 
extension manager works in Firefox 1.0 -- the extension manager in 
Firefox 1.1 is much nicer and works better with Linux.  I also don't 
provide devel packages for either because of some packaging conflict 
issues with the mozilla package, so it is slightly more difficult as well.

I'm actually working on packaging up Deer Park Alpha 1, which is a very 
early alpha release of Firefox 1.1, which should hit rawhide soon.  I 
will also get preview builds of xulrunner which should help to alleviate 
this problem.  I hope the situation will be much nicer for FC5.

>  
>  It might be nice for fedora extras to be able to provide extensions as 
>  well.
>   
Sure, I would hope that once our picture is better, we get a lot of 
extensions in Extras.

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 04:50:49AM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  Is it possible?  Yes.  Is it easy?  Not really, due to the way that
> the 
>  extension manager works in Firefox 1.0 -- the extension manager in 
>  Firefox 1.1 is much nicer and works better with Linux.  I also don't 
>  provide devel packages for either because of some packaging conflict 
>  issues with the mozilla package, so it is slightly more difficult as well. 
Hey Christopher -- is the new extension manager going to deal with the
updating-per-user-extensions-and-themese issue at all? Or is the idea going
to be to break that completely and ask people to install extensions
system-wide? 

Or, is there any way to mix-and-match gracefully?


>  I'm actually working on packaging up Deer Park Alpha 1, which is
> a very 
>  early alpha release of Firefox 1.1, which should hit rawhide soon.  I 
>  will also get preview builds of xulrunner which should help to alleviate 
>  this problem.  I hope the situation will be much nicer for FC5. 
Me too. :)

Oh, on a totally 'nother topic -- I saw some work recently on python
bindings for XPCOM. Is that likely to make it into XULRunner in the, like,
predicatable future? That would so rock.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm(a)mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 78 degrees Fahrenheit.

[Orion Poplawski]

Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  I'm actually working on packaging up Deer Park Alpha 1, which is
> a very 
>  early alpha release of Firefox 1.1, which should hit rawhide soon.  I 
>  will also get preview builds of xulrunner which should help to alleviate 
>  this problem.  I hope the situation will be much nicer for FC5. 
Thanks for the info.  I'll wait then till FC5 for this.

[Christopher Aillon]

On 06/24/2005 08:35 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  Oh, on a totally 'nother topic -- I saw some work recently on
> python
>  bindings for XPCOM. Is that likely to make it into XULRunner in the, like,
>  predicatable future? That would so rock. 
I'm hoping to make that the case. 
http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany_2fEphyPython_2fPyXPCOM for more.