[Bug 236521] Review Request: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu May 31 13:40:42 UTC 2007

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: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins
Alias: nspluginwrapper


------- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat.com  2007-05-31 09:40 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=155815)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=155815&action=view)
nspluginwrapper.spec patch

I think the basic idea of building the package with --without-biarch is sound.
But I have a few comments:
1) %ifarch ppc64 || x86_64
is wrong syntax, %ifarch takes a list of arches, so %ifarch ppc64 x86_64.
Still better to create a rpm macro so that it can be easily changed.
2) by default nspluginwrapper strips the files, so nspluginwrapper-debuginfo is
(almost) empty
3) x86_64 or ppc64 mozilla plugins go into /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/
rather than /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/
4) on ppc I'm not sure it is a good idea to only ship the variant where
64-bit nspluginwrapper runs 32-bit nspluginviewer, if you have 32-bit firefox
(does ppc64 firefox already work, it has been certainly always broken in FC6),
then you might on the other side be interested in running 64-bit ppc plugins
in 32-bit firefox
5) the symlink the spec file created was broken
6) after this package hits fedora, it might make sense to clean up some of the
scripts and programs, either the scripts are overly portable (testing for
non-linux OSes all the time), distro specific (mkruntime script) or handle
many Linux distros (see get_system_mozilla_plugin_dir) but not Fedora resp.
RHEL - that means unneeded stats of /etc/SUSE-release etc. and likely wrong
in the end anyway.

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