Re: [Cooker] mozilla firefox 1.5 and dependencies

[Laurent Suchet]

Michael Scherer a écrit :

> Le Lundi 09 Janvier 2006 08:31, Laurent Suchet a écrit :
>
> > That is fine, but if you want to install only Galeon or for my example
> > Avidemux you MUST install firefox (and the good version...).  So you
> > must have 2 browsers even if you want to use only one... Or you must
> > recompile the original sources that is not a very user-friendly way to
> > say to windows users to choose Mandriva..
> >
> > Isn't it possible to separate things?
> >    
>
> No, but this is worked upstream as far as i have heard.
>
>
>  
>
> > For example avidemux needs in fact Spidermonkey javascript engine from
> > mozilla, which is find in Firefox packages.... Isn't it possible to make
> > a real library based install ? Separate generic libs from mandriva
> > package to enable more compatibility ?
> >    
>
> This is what we do usualy, so this has be tried.
> And as you can see, it didn't worked, or it wasn't maintainable.
>  
I'm aware of difficulties to maintain all those different packages, it 
is not a depreciation of maintainer's job, I know that they are 
over-stimulated.... and endless growing of softwares number is a mess to 
deal with.

>  
>
> > I think it is a serious question and not only a flame one...
> > It means also to my point of vue that if the actual system is
> > maintained, all the dependant packages must be proposed at the same
> > time... to avoid confusion.... Even if some packages are not in 'main'
> > but perhaps in 'contrib' or 'plf'....
> >    
>
> This is cooker. Thing are expected to break.
> If you take a look from a stable release point of view, than, everything is 
> upgraded at the same time ( because we release the distro as a whole ).
>
>  
>
> > There is a big deal for Linux with this sort of problem, as it is
> > specific to Linux.
> >    
>
> This problem is not specific to linux, it is visible in linux ( and free 
> software for that matter). 
> I doubt that microsoft release all of their dll at the same time to their 
> developers, they just hide it from the public, while the aim of cooker ( and 
> free software ) is to be open.
>  
Yes, sure. Microsoft is not a good example in bug gestion....lol

> Of course, frederic could work alone, release all package upgradable in 3 
> weeks, because it would not be faster, but you would believe that every went 
> smoother.
>  
I was not willing that frederic has to work alone...  I was just 
wondering if a separate lib policy could facilitate the separate 
maintainer's job... It seems not

>  
>
> > I remember some discussions here when FF 1.5 was just out, and some
> > people said that it was not a priority to integrate it in cooker...
> >    
>
> I think this is better to upgrade gnome or dbus/hal, that are used by other 
> part of the distribution, and that may block other people working to improve 
> the product, than upgrade firefox, that is used by no one to build something 
> based on firefox. 
> It is used by users, yes, but the old firefox works fine for that matter.
>  
Yes you're right but cooker is here to test future dev of stable 
release, and even if 2007 is quite far away, it is our goal to test 
products, even products that are not dedicated to developpment.

Thanks for all your explanations...  I'm a cooker user but not a 
developper... Don't have time to go in it even I would love to .... I 
only try to 'upstream' basic end-user considerations...

regards

LS