Any chance of getting Firefox 2.0 into rawhide/FC6?

[Christopher Aillon]

Benjy Grogan wrote:
> On 9/27/06, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/06, Benjy Grogan <benjy.grogan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 9/27/06, Christopher Aillon <caillon at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > Gilboa Davara wrote:
>> > > > Hello all,
>> >
>> > Okay, but why isn't Firefox ever put into rawhide when it's alphas and
>> > betas become available?  It's as important as Gnome and Gaim and they
>> > seem to get some excellent testing in rawhide.  As it is now FC7 will
>>
>> As far as I know its Caillon who does
>> Mozilla/Seamonkey/FIrefox/Thunderbird/BobsYourUncle for RHEL-2.1,
>> RHEL-3, RHEL-4, FCL-5, soon to be FCL-6 and FCL-devel. It might be 1-2
>> other people.. but that is not a lot of people to throw at a code base
>> close to the kernel in size.
> 
> True.
>>
>> It could also be that the two world views of always use the latest
>> version that the Mozilla Foundation is promoting doesnt match up well
>> with the "What stable version are we keeping for 5 years?"
> 
> That's more the thinking for RHEL.
> 
> But I get the concerns of API breakage with everything else Firefox
> builds would affect in rawhide.  And just bad timing with Fedora
> feature freezes and Firefox's roadmap.  And the importance of in fact
> having a stable web browser despite the bleeding edge bent of Fedora.
> And the woolly mammoth that the codebase is.

You're still getting the bleeding edge.  FC6 will most likely have the 
latest supported version of Firefox that mozilla.org ships(*).  Their 
builds have a feature which pings people about new updates, which won't 
tell people using 1.5 to upgrade until 2.0 is out.  And they will still 
continue supporting 1.5 at that point.

(*) Things that could change that are a quick Firefox security release 
between when the final tree is composed, the bits are submitted 
wherever, and then made live, etc. But you get the idea.