Firefox on Fedora: No longer funny
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Oct 11 17:57:35 UTC 2011
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 11:40 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:16:52 +0200
> Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > It would be great, when bodhi would allow me to add an updated
> > mozilla-noscript to the firefox update, when I notice, that the new
> > firefox upadate in testing breaks it.
> > Otherwise, firefox is pushed to stable more faster, than
> > mozilla-noscript and it's broken for some time, till it was long
> > enought in updates-testing.
> > It's NOT possible to push it faster out there, because I usually don't
> > get much karma. For the last update, I got 2 new bug reports, that
> > noscript is broken, but not a single +1 karma for the same issue,
> > although linking in both bug reports and being in updates-testing
> > anyways...
> > (Hope to not get the usual "That's the job of AutoQA" answer...)
> On the bright side, I don't see how AutoQA could help in this situation
> so my answer isn't "that's the job of AutoQA". On the down side, I
> don't really have any good answers on how to improve the situation.
Well, I do. It seems pretty simple: we only have a few extensions
packaged. We should consider extensions to be effectively API
dependencies of Firefox, which means any Firefox update must also
include updates for the dependencies - extensions. We should ask the
Firefox maintainers and extension maintainers to co-ordinate so that
each Firefox update which changes the extension API number (or whatever
it is that causes extensions to be marked 'incompatible') includes
rebuilds of each extension.
That way Firefox can't be pushed without the extensions. Nothing in the
above paragraph looks particularly onerous or difficult to organize, to
me. We're only talking about a few packages and packagers.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel