On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 14:26 +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> Hi,
> there is currently a case against Firefox discussed in FESCo:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1518
We have many different opinions in this thread. Clearly, there is no
solution that will make everyone happy. I tried to formulate a
consensus position based on the comments in this thread, which I
suspect the majority of us can support:
"Fedora Workstation prefers to ship the latest release of Firefox, not
ESR releases. Shipping an unbranded version of Firefox is acceptable to
us, but not ideal. Shipping a version of Firefox that blocks unsigned
extensions is also acceptable to us, but not ideal."
In other words: we're fine with FESCo deciding for either unbranded or
locked-down Firefox, but we won't be very happy either way. Does this
seem fair?
Other than the FESCo ticket itself, I didn't get nearly as much negative on signed extensions as on an unbranded Firefox substitution. There's no data provided thus far on popularity of the Fedora only unsigned extensions, or why they couldn't be submitted for AMO for signing; either made available on AMO or as a Fedora package.
Chris Murphy
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
