Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/11/2009 10:15 AM, David wrote: >> On 5/11/2009 9:14 AM, Douglas E. Warner wrote: >>> David wrote: >>>> On 5/11/2009 8:07 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>>>> OK, first off, why in $DEITY's name are we including Firefox 3.5b4 and >>>>> Thunderbird 3.0b2 in Fedora 11? These are unstable branches of the >>>>> browser and email client, and as such are supported by almost none of >>>>> the myriad of extensions available for the 3.0 and 2.0 versions, >>>>> respectively. >>>>> >>>>> I was more than a little disappointed when I upgraded my laptop to the >>>>> F11 Preview to discover that only two out of seven of my Thunderbird >>>>> extensions and three of my thirteen Firefox extensions remained functional. >>>> Depending on exactly what extensions that you have if you *download* >>>> them you can change this. Open the .xpi, or .jar, with the archive tool. >>>> Open the file named 'install.rdf' with your text editor and look for >>>> the line that says "<em:maxVersion>". Change that number to the version >>>> that you are using. Or even a little higher if you like. Save and update >>>> the 'install.rdf', close the archive tool, and install your new extension. >>>> >>>> This works for most themes too. >>> The point is that most extension developers haven't felt the need to try to >>> update their extensions for Thunderbird 3 as the API hasn't stabilized yet. >>> Thunderbird extensions are much more finicky than Firefox extensions I would >>> wager, especially given this major feature update. I would offer that Firefox >>> 3.5b4 is a lot closer to RC than Thunderbird 3.0b2 is, and I still expect >>> there to be problems with extensions for Firefox before release (this was very >>> common for Firefox 3.0 as well where changes broke extensions even in the RC >>> series). >> >> I use nine extensions with Thunderbird 3.0b2. Most of them I 'modified' >> as I described above. I use eleven extensions with Firefox 3.5b4. Most >> of which I 'modified'. I have not had any problems with any of them. > > Ok, just so I make sure I understand your argument completely. "It's > fine to include a pre-release copy of Thunderbird and Firefox because > you can bludgeon unsupported extensions into being supported by > following an undocumented and potentially dangerous hack." > > Seriously, people. This is exactly the sort of elitist bullshit that > puts people off of using Fedora. Furthermore, it's damned hypocritical. > > With everything else on the desktop, we're all about simplifying and > making usage easier. But for the two most-used features, we're going to > require that our users learn to hack .xpi files? > > I call bullshit. > > I agree; extension developers are in a similar situation to package maintainers here; they need to test their product against a moving upstream and re-release when working. The fact that they haven't done this yet is just a clue that it's not time to update Firefox/Thunderbird. -Doug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
