On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:54 +0200, Peter Gordon wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 23:20 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > > I noticed, xulrunner was successfully built for devel (finally), but I > > see there one issue - it obsoletes firefox < 2.1 but it does not supply > > it's functionality (unless you use only the libraries, like in epiphany, > > liferea, etc.). If I understand it correctly it means that tomorrow's > > rawhide will have a lot of dependency problems (new gecko-libs and > > removal of firefox) and on systems that don't have any packages > > dependent on firefox or gecko-libs even a removal of firefox. This isn't > > intended, is it? Or do you have already prepared firefox 3 (still alpha) > > for rawhide? An easy solution to this, IMHO, would be removal of the > > obsolete from xulrunner and removal of the gre(64).conf file from > > firefox package (it clashes with xulrunner's). > > My understanding of this matter is that anything which depends on Gecko > should be depending on gecko-devel (at build-time) and/or gecko-libs (at > run-time). > > These virtuals are provided by both the Firefox and XULrunner packages, > and therefore should allow smoothly upgrading from the former to the > latter. > -- This is the problem with broken deps (most of them will be solved just by rebuild or with slight changes to their spec files or if they do not have support for xulrunner yet then with some, mostly easy, patches), but there is the problem with obsoletes, too. Because xulrunner obsoletes firefox < 2.1, firefox will be removed during yum update, won't it? Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
