On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Mike Chambers <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks Jeff for showing that little snippet, as that *should* be all > that is needed to drop this WHOLE conversation that was started for > nothing if someone would had just asked, and someone pointed it out > earlier anyway. Since this all started with a Ubuntu bug, perhaps someone with a Launchpad account should consider being generous enough with their time to head over there and point out Fedora's current solution to the problem. There are a couple of comments on the ticket asking how Fedora has handled this situation. Someone could be neighbourly and point out the url to them. I normally wouldn't suggest that. But since Ubuntu's handling of this issue has bled over into our discussion channels, it seems only appropriate that we make sure that misinformation about how we are handling things doesn't propagate back. Though I do find it fascinating that in the "extensive discussions" with Mozilla that Shuttleworth speaks of in the ticket, the previous handling of this situation by Fedora has not come up. https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/269656/comments/5 If I had a launchpad account, I'd be asking how much due diligence did Shuttleworth actually do? Since its common knowledge that Fedora is already shipping firefox 3.x it should have been quite simple for Shuttleworth or any Canonical employee who was engaged in discussions with Mozilla to check how Fedora has addressed this issue by doing a Fedora install...or examining the package payload..or just examining the spec file in the cvs. I'm not aware of any factor which would prevent Canonical from pursuing a similar arrangement in "extensive" discussions with Mozilla.. -jef"I would only use a launchpad account for evil"spaleta -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
