On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 10:59 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this is a packaging related question, but fedora-devel in this case is > > probably the better place than fedora-packaging for now (when it comes > > to actual implemetaion details fedora-packaging probably is better). > > > > Did anybody in recent times look into packaging thunderbird or firefox > > extensions as RPMS in fedora? One of my desktops is a x86_64 machine and > > getting a proper enigmail for it sometimes is annoying (¹). Caillion > > iirc in the past once said packaging extensions would be possible with > > future versions of thunderbird and firefox. Are thunderbird and firefox > > 2.0 (both in rawhide these days) those future versions or do we have to > > wait until 3.0 for proper support? Or are there any workarounds to > > somehow make it work now? > > 3.0. There's no maintainable way to make it work now without querying > RPM in %post and requiring triggers. I eventually managed figured out a way of getting the Firefox extension packaged as part of the mugshot package to work without having to query rpm from a scriptlet, but complicated triggers? yep. The mugshot scriptlets (and the script they call) are pretty well tested at this point and heavily commented, so they should be a good starting point for anybody trying to package a Firefox extension. My feeling is if there are extensions with binary components, it makes sense to package them, but for pure Javascript/XUL extensions, it's probably easier to let users just install them directly into their account for now. - Owen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
