[Bug 215256] Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 13 14:05:05 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: firefox-32 - Alternate Launcher for 32bit Firefox


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215256





------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net  2006-11-13 09:05 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Why include Sources as Patches?
> 
> So it can be tracked in VCS instead of the binary cache.

I'm not aware of any restriction which would disallow commiting "SourceX:" files
into CVS. I actually do this a lot with scripts, desktop entries and such. But
putting source files as "PatchX:" seems wrong. Those aren't patches.

> > If there is no way to require the 32bit package from this "wrapper", then the
> > package seems pretty broken, no? Would "Requires: /usr/lib/mozilla" work?
> 
> You might be correct, however Bug #214100 is the real reasonable thing to do. 
> Given that has been rejected this package is our only solution until
> nspluginwrapper is made perfect.

But without a proper requirement to make sure the 32bit version of firefox will
be available, this package will be broken.

> > Oh, and Matthias Saou thinks it's pretty weird to address one's self using the
> > 3rd person :-)
> 
> That part is actually in the package %description.

Then I'd suggest you remove it. Personal opinions should be expressed on lists,
in bugzilla entries, in CVS commit messages... but not in "end user readable
areas" like descriptions, included READMEs and such. Just my personal advice,
though.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list