For the single end user that manages his /her own computer, it
doesn't matter how the add-on is deployed. In fact, there are
advantages to the way Firefox handles it. In an environment that is
managed by a "professional" , using the distribution package manager
for add-ons has many advantages.
As an administrator, I would prefer to control what Firefox and
Thunderbird add-ons my users have access to, and allow the system-
wide management tools to tell me what add-ons are installed and what
are the exact versions of those add-ons. Some add-on versions are
locked to a specific Firefox version. An administrator would take
that into account when rolling out updates. yum /rpm could bark if an
update to Firefox was attempted before an updated add-on was
available ( as long as the correct version requires were in the add-
on package ).
Code for self-application updates ( and add-on updates ) is IMHO
wasted effort since the code and infrastructure already exists in the
distro platform ( yum, rpm ). Only in the proprietary OS world do
applications need to re-invent the update wheel because the OS update
mechanism is closed to most application developers and is only
available to the OS vendor for its own applications. Having Firefox
update itself and its add-ons is a consequence of its deployment on
Windows. It is not necessarily the best way on Linux.
Charles Dostale
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
