On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:56:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Kevin Kofler wrote on 02.10.2010 00:56: > > Sven Lankes wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653 > >> Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we > >> should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel. > > +1 > > > > I really don't see why the Firefox stack keeps getting a free ride around > > our packaging guidelines. Firefox is a package like any others, it MUST > > respect our packaging guidelines, and that means NO bundled libraries, > > PERIOD. If that's not possible while still calling it Firefox, it MUST be > > renamed. > > Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question > that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never > bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now: > > * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not > simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹) > > It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork > where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind), > hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like > that. Or do they? > IIRC this has come up on the mailing lists before and the mozilla maintainers didn't want to have the fork in Fedora. However, there is no packaging guideline that would prevent this. As a member of the FPC (but not FESCo, where a conflict over this might ultimately go), I would be for allowing such a package if someone wanted to package it for review. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpdzaii_xJeG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
