On Nov 14, 2007 2:41 PM, Christopher Aillon <caillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Um, did you read the article? Specifically the "What are we doing?" > opening text and the third bullet point underneath it? firefox as shipped in Fedora, isn't what I'm most concerned about. I'm pretty confident that for firefox in Fedora has a roadmap on how handle the maintenance burden of a firefox package that diverges from upstream development over the course of a Fedora release cycle. What I am really concerned about is the other gecko lib based applications we have. xulrunner is a clear win for these applications but only if the upstream developers for these applications are ready to make use of xulrunner. We've been talking about xulrunner since F8 testing started. I would have hoped that the maintainers for applications that depend on gecko-libs would know by now if the upstream projects are ready to support xulrunner. So it really comes down to this. Out of the applications that depend on gecko-libs in fedora right now, other than firefox, which of those applications are xulrunner-ready? And out of the ones that are not, is upstream development actively working on making their app work with xulrunner? Worst case scenario is that we are going to get into a situation with some of these apps where the upstream development does not support xulrunner and it will be up to our package maintainers to try to make it work and end up in over their heads keeping up with patches as app updates are issued. As a project we need to know about this sort of potential problem as early in the development cycle as possible. -jef"if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in DOOOOOOOM"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
