Christopher Aillon schrieb:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> A little over a year ago I asked about packaging Firefox extensions and
>> was told things would be better in Firefox 1.1. We now have 1.5. Are
>> we ready to start packaging Firefox extensions?
>
> Things are better, but nowhere near great. The fact that Firefox
> doesn't use versioned libraries means that every time the version
> changes upstream, the on-disk directory changes.
Would it be possible to do something similar to the plugins-scheme in
the mozilla-based stuff in Fedora? e.g. install all extensions to
/usr/lib{,64}/{mozilla,firefox,thunderbird}/1.5/extensions/
an we make somehow sure that those apps find them there? Maybe with some
scripts that create symlinks where they belong (yes, that's a bit scary,
I know.
Site note: maybe we can even get rid of the "1.5" in above example, but
I'm not sure.
> In any case, things
> are probably "good enough" since extensions can be properly installed
> and uninstalled without manual user intervention. Take a look at what
> beagle does to install its extension.
>
> Just before I sent this, I thought of a potentially big problem
> though..... the automatic software update that Firefox has. It's
> extremely likely that extensions can installed via RPM, then updated via
> the software updater, and then rpmdb will not match what's on disk,
> causing potential problems for future rpm operations such as rpm -U, rpm
> -e, and obviously rpm -V.
Well, firefox would need to run as root to overwrite what's on disk.
People doing such stuff did something totally wrong already and probably
don't care to much about rpm -{UeV}.
> We probably need a solution for that before we start shipping extensions
> as part of extras.
Well, we probably should start with one or two extensions and see how it
works out before we start more.
CU
thl
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
