Firefox on Fedora: No longer funny

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Tue Oct 11 19:35:23 UTC 2011

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 20:46 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:

> > 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.
> Firefox can be pushed without the extensions, because the broken deps
> mail can be ignored. This won't be the case, once AutoQA is able to
> stop updates, which is not a solution to the current problem, so I
> didn't want to talk about that much.

I'm not talking about _technical_ enforcement here but policy
enforcement: yes, it would still be technically possible for the Firefox
maintainer to push an update, there would be no code safeguards in place
to prevent it happening. I'm simply saying that if you all get together
and ensure that you agree it should happen and work out some procedures
to make sure it doesn't, then the problem would still be solved. We
don't need technological enforcement for everything, sometimes just
getting people to sit down with each other and work out a process that
solves the problem can work just fine.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list