[Cooker] [RPM] cooker contrib/release xulrunner-1.9-1mdv2009.0

[Tomasz Paweł Gajc]

> Name        : xulrunner                    Relocations: (not

> relocatable) Version     : 1.9                               Vendor:
> Mandriva Release     : 1mdv2009.0                    Build Date: Mon
> Jul 21 11:37:02 2008 Install Date: (not installed)
> Build Host: n2.mandriva.com Group       :
> Development/Other             Source RPM: (none) Size        :
> 38133104      License: MPLv1.1 Signature   : (none)
> Packager    : Tomasz Pawel Gajc <tpg@...>
> URL         : http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
> Summary     : XUL Runtime for Gecko Applications
> Description :
> XULRunner is a Mozilla runtime package that can be used to
> bootstrap XUL+XPCOM applications that are as rich as Firefox
> and Thunderbird. It will provide mechanisms for installing,
> upgrading, and uninstalling these applications. XULRunner will
> also provide libxul, a solution which allows the embedding of
> Mozilla technologies in other projects and products.
>
> Tomasz Pawel Gajc <tpg@...> 1.9-1mdv2009.0:
> + Revision: 238857
> - initial package for Mandriva(work in progress)
> - backport few patches from firefox-3.0
> - try better idea for pluginsdir patch, first check /usr/lib64 and
> then /usr/lib for mozilla plugins
> - Created package structure for xulrunner.

In next days i'll try to compile FF3 against xulrunner. I hope this
will be a piece of cake, if not maybe someone is willing to help.

I think that xulrunner package needs more attention, accorging to other
distros spec files, mdv one is really poor and light ;)

--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor

www.mandriva.com
  _
 ( )
  X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 / \ www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

[Tiago Salem Herrmann]

Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:

>> Name        : xulrunner                    Relocations: (not
>> relocatable) Version     : 1.9                               Vendor:
>> Mandriva Release     : 1mdv2009.0                    Build Date: Mon
>> Jul 21 11:37:02 2008 Install Date: (not installed)
>> Build Host: n2.mandriva.com Group       :
>> Development/Other             Source RPM: (none) Size        :
>> 38133104      License: MPLv1.1 Signature   : (none)
>> Packager    : Tomasz Pawel Gajc <tpg@...>
>> URL         : http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
>> Summary     : XUL Runtime for Gecko Applications
>> Description :
>> XULRunner is a Mozilla runtime package that can be used to
>> bootstrap XUL+XPCOM applications that are as rich as Firefox
>> and Thunderbird. It will provide mechanisms for installing,
>> upgrading, and uninstalling these applications. XULRunner will
>> also provide libxul, a solution which allows the embedding of
>> Mozilla technologies in other projects and products.
>>
>> Tomasz Pawel Gajc <tpg@...> 1.9-1mdv2009.0:
>> + Revision: 238857
>> - initial package for Mandriva(work in progress)
>> - backport few patches from firefox-3.0
>> - try better idea for pluginsdir patch, first check /usr/lib64 and
>> then /usr/lib for mozilla plugins
>> - Created package structure for xulrunner.
>>    
>
> In next days i'll try to compile FF3 against xulrunner. I hope this
> will be a piece of cake, if not maybe someone is willing to help.
>
> I think that xulrunner package needs more attention, accorging to other
> distros spec files, mdv one is really poor and light ;)
>
>  

Hi,

I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but
the problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates
for xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.

[Colin Guthrie-8]

Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but
> the problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates
> for xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.

AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including
RH and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's
inclusion in main.

I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
threads....

Col


--

+--------------------------+
|      Colin Guthrie       |
+--------------------------+
| cguthrie(at)mandriva.org |
|  http://colin.guthr.ie/  |
+--------------------------+

[Vincent Danen-2]

* [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:

> Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
>> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but the
>> problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates for
>> xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
>
> AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including RH
> and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's inclusion in
> main.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
> threads....

Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?

 From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
*lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
version upgrades without worrying).

--
Vincent Danen @ http://linsec.ca/

[Tiago Salem Herrmann]

Vincent Danen wrote:

> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
>
>> Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
>>> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine.
>>> but the problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security
>>> updates for xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main
>>> someday.
>>
>> AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner
>> including RH and I think that this should not be a blocker for
>> xulrunner's inclusion in main.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
>> threads....
>
> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
> and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?

Because, as far as I tested it, they are not linking against xulrunner *yet.
>
> From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
> doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
> *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
> or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
> version upgrades without worrying).
>
Well, I personally like this solution, but every time a new security
hole appears, there should be updates both for firefox and xulrunner.
Obviously the firefox update will be much easier to do, as nobody
(hopefully) will be directed linked against it, but even though I think
this is a point to consider.

[Frederic Crozat]

Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :

> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
>
> > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but the
> >> problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates for
> >> xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
> >
> > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including RH
> > and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's inclusion in
> > main.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
> > threads....
>
> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
> and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
>
>  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
> doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
> *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
> or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
> version upgrades without worrying).

There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of xulrunner,
which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.

--
Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@...>
Mandriva

[Frederik Himpe]

On ma, 2008-07-21 at 19:40 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:

> Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
> > * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >
> > > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> > >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but the
> > >> problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates for
> > >> xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including RH
> > > and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's inclusion in
> > > main.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
> > > threads....
> >
> > Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
> > and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
> >
> >  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
> > doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
> > *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
> > or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
> > version upgrades without worrying).
>
> There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of xulrunner,
> which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.

Well, but there are "unofficial" onces then? At least Debian now has
Xulrunner 1.9.0.1 (which correpsonds with FF 3.0.1 I guess?)
http://packages.debian.org/sid/xulrunner-1.9. On my Debian system, I see
at least yelp, epiphany-gecko, iceweasel (aka firefox),
python-gnome2-extras, python-gtkmozembd, liferea and gnome-user-guide
depend on this package. AFAIK the update of this package from 1.9-rcX to
1.9.0.1 did not cause a forced update of all these packages.


--
Frederik Himpe <fhimpe@...>

[Vincent Danen-2]

* [2008-07-21 13:23:14 -0400] Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:

> Vincent Danen wrote:
>> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>
>>> Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
>>>> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but
>>>> the problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates
>>>> for xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including
>>> RH and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's
>>> inclusion in main.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
>>> threads....
>>
>> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
>> and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
> Because, as far as I tested it, they are not linking against xulrunner *yet.

Ok, then I don't get why we're bothering.  If nothing but firefox links
to xulrunner, and everything else links to firefox, what's the point of
having xulrunner?  It just makes for one more package to update.

>> From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
>> doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
>> *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
>> or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
>> version upgrades without worrying).
>>
> Well, I personally like this solution, but every time a new security hole
> appears, there should be updates both for firefox and xulrunner.
> Obviously the firefox update will be much easier to do, as nobody
> (hopefully) will be directed linked against it, but even though I think
> this is a point to consider.

Sure.  To me, the only advantage of using xulrunner is if the
third-party stuff links to it and not to ff.  If that's not the case, I
don't see why we should even bother.

--
Vincent Danen @ http://linsec.ca/

[Vincent Danen-2]

* [2008-07-21 19:40:16 +0200] Frederic Crozat wrote:

>Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
>> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>
>> > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
>> >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but the
>> >> problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates for
>> >> xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
>> >
>> > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including RH
>> > and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's inclusion in
>> > main.
>> >
>> > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
>> > threads....
>>
>> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
>> and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
>>
>>  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
>> doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
>> *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
>> or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
>> version upgrades without worrying).
>
>There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of xulrunner,
>which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.

But if Fedora and RH are using xulrunner and building stuff against it,
*they* have to support it.  We would just use their patches.

--
Vincent Danen @ http://linsec.ca/

[Tomasz Paweł Gajc]

Dnia 2008-07-21, o godz. 20:00:59
Frederik Himpe <fhimpe@...> napisał(a):

> On ma, 2008-07-21 at 19:40 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
> > > * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> > > >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked
> > > >> fine. but the problem is that mozilla is not officially
> > > >> releasing security updates for xulrunner itself, which
> > > >> prevents it to be moved to main someday.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner
> > > > including RH and I think that this should not be a blocker for
> > > > xulrunner's inclusion in main.
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in
> > > > various threads....
> > >
> > > Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against
> > > xulrunner and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
> > >
> > >  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against
> > > xulrunner doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against
> > > xulrunner makes a *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can
> > > just take patches from RH or whomever to apply if need be, but
> > > can then keep pushing firefox version upgrades without worrying).
> >
> > There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of
> > xulrunner, which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.
>
> Well, but there are "unofficial" onces then? At least Debian now has
> Xulrunner 1.9.0.1 (which correpsonds with FF 3.0.1 I guess?)
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/xulrunner-1.9. On my Debian system, I
> see at least yelp, epiphany-gecko, iceweasel (aka firefox),
> python-gnome2-extras, python-gtkmozembd, liferea and gnome-user-guide
> depend on this package. AFAIK the update of this package from 1.9-rcX
> to 1.9.0.1 did not cause a forced update of all these packages.
>
>

Same goes to SUSE and Fedora. If everyone out there is doing this, then
why mdv should not to ? It has been proven by few distros that have
xulrunner as a separate package and ff too, makes sense and it is a
wise choice(e.g updates).

In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has to be
rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm requires).
Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far better, and requires
less attention.


--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor

www.mandriva.com
  _
 ( )
  X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 / \ www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

[Olivier Blin-2]

Tomasz Paweł Gajc <phenomenal@...> writes:

> In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
> gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has to be
> rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm requires).
> Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far better, and requires
> less attention.

Is it really significant? If most of the security/update fixes in
Firefox used to break the binary compatibility, won't it be the same
with xulrunner?
I.e., will we still have to rebuild package on xulrunner updates?

--
Olivier Blin (blino) - Mandriva

[Tiago Salem Herrmann]

Olivier Blin wrote:

> Tomasz Paweł Gajc <phenomenal@...> writes:
>
>  
>> In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
>> gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has to be
>> rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm requires).
>> Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far better, and requires
>> less attention.
>>    
>
> Is it really significant? If most of the security/update fixes in
> Firefox used to break the binary compatibility, won't it be the same
> with xulrunner?
> I.e., will we still have to rebuild package on xulrunner updates?
>  

If I understand correctly, yes.

[Tomasz Paweł Gajc]

Dnia 2008-07-21, o godz. 17:56:25
Tiago Salem Herrmann <salem@...> napisał(a):

> Olivier Blin wrote:
> > Tomasz Paweł Gajc <phenomenal@...> writes:
> >
> >  
> >> In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
> >> gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has
> >> to be rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm
> >> requires). Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far
> >> better, and requires less attention.
> >>    
> >
> > Is it really significant? If most of the security/update fixes in
> > Firefox used to break the binary compatibility, won't it be the same
> > with xulrunner?
> > I.e., will we still have to rebuild package on xulrunner updates?
> >  
> If I understand correctly, yes.
>

Yes, ofcourse some significant apps will need to be rebuild.

Simple example - exaile(a gtk amarok like player) during compilation it
only passes ff path (which is %{_libdir}/libfirefox-2.0.0.X ) and
that's all. So every ff update, exaile has to be rebuild just to pass
the right path. With xul runner this is quite easy, just pass the
%{_sysconfdir}/gre.d/gre.conf which stores the ff path.


Speaking of *official* releases of xulrunner:
http://developer.mozilla.org/pl/docs/XULRunner

According to this xulrunner is supported.
--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor

www.mandriva.com
  _
 ( )
  X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
 / \ www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

[Frederik Himpe]

On ma, 2008-07-21 at 17:56 -0400, Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:

> Olivier Blin wrote:
> > Tomasz Paweł Gajc <phenomenal@...> writes:
> >
> >  
> >> In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
> >> gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has to be
> >> rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm requires).
> >> Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far better, and requires
> >> less attention.
> >>    
> >
> > Is it really significant? If most of the security/update fixes in
> > Firefox used to break the binary compatibility, won't it be the same
> > with xulrunner?
> > I.e., will we still have to rebuild package on xulrunner updates?
> >  
> If I understand correctly, yes.

Well, this is definitely not needed on Debian. Recently Debian even had
Iceweasel 3.0 RC1 running with Xulrunner 1.9 final. Same for all other
applications in Debian depending on Xulrunner-1.9, which defintely are
not upgraded when Xulrunner is upgraded, but still continue to work.

--
Frederik Himpe <fhimpe@...>

[Vincent Danen-2]

* [2008-07-21 22:51:18 +0200] Olivier Blin wrote:

>Tomasz Pawe?? Gajc <phenomenal@...> writes:
>
>> In my point of view, lot of apps are dependant on ff (mostly
>> gnome stuff) so if new ff new version is released, this stuff has to be
>> rebuild, in most cases for no reason(just to satisfy rpm requires).
>> Having xulrunner and link stuff against it is far better, and requires
>> less attention.
>
>Is it really significant? If most of the security/update fixes in
>Firefox used to break the binary compatibility, won't it be the same
>with xulrunner?
>I.e., will we still have to rebuild package on xulrunner updates?

IIRC, the binary compatibility is broken due to ff's dumb-ass storage of
libs in versioned directories (either that, or it's our said dumb-ass
storage).

Beyond the versioning for the libs, does anyone actuallly know if binary
compatibility is broken by versioned upgrades?

--
Vincent Danen @ http://linsec.ca/

[Frederic Crozat]

Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 13:29 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :

> * [2008-07-21 19:40:16 +0200] Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
> >Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
> >> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> >> >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked fine. but the
> >> >> problem is that mozilla is not officially releasing security updates for
> >> >> xulrunner itself, which prevents it to be moved to main someday.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner including RH
> >> > and I think that this should not be a blocker for xulrunner's inclusion in
> >> > main.
> >> >
> >> > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in various
> >> > threads....
> >>
> >> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against xulrunner
> >> and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
> >>
> >>  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against xulrunner
> >> doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against xulrunner makes a
> >> *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can just take patches from RH
> >> or whomever to apply if need be, but can then keep pushing firefox
> >> version upgrades without worrying).
> >
> >There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of xulrunner,
> >which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.
>
> But if Fedora and RH are using xulrunner and building stuff against it,
> *they* have to support it.  We would just use their patches.

Well, I won't be the one trying to maintain it, hopefully.

Moreover, there is still no "official" 1.9.0.1 tarball release (in
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/ ), just
nightly snapshots.

And FF 3.0.1 was released on July 16, ie 5 days ago..

I guess it will be difficult to issue security updates with such a time
lag..

--
Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@...>
Mandriva

[Tomasz Paweł Gajc]

Dnia 2008-07-22, o godz. 10:26:16
Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@...> napisał(a):

> Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 13:29 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
> > * [2008-07-21 19:40:16 +0200] Frederic Crozat wrote:
> >
> > >Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 09:13 -0600, Vincent Danen a écrit :
> > >> * [2008-07-21 15:03:23 +0100] Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Tiago Salem Herrmann wrote:
> > >> >> I already compiled firefox3 against xulrunner, and it worked
> > >> >> fine. but the problem is that mozilla is not officially
> > >> >> releasing security updates for xulrunner itself, which
> > >> >> prevents it to be moved to main someday.
> > >> >
> > >> > AFAIK, all the major distros are using or moving to xulrunner
> > >> > including RH and I think that this should not be a blocker for
> > >> > xulrunner's inclusion in main.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm pretty sure this is what was said before on this list in
> > >> > various threads....
> > >>
> > >> Why not build all the extras (epiphany, galeon, etc.) against
> > >> xulrunner and leave firefox3 not building against xulrunner?
> > >>
> > >>  From my perspective (for updates) building firefox3 against
> > >> xulrunner doesn't make sense.  Building everything else against
> > >> xulrunner makes a *lot* of sense (and then, for updates, we can
> > >> just take patches from RH or whomever to apply if need be, but
> > >> can then keep pushing firefox version upgrades without worrying).
> > >
> > >There is a problem here : there are no "official" releases of
> > >xulrunner, which mean, galeon / epiphany/ etc will stay vulnerable.
> >
> > But if Fedora and RH are using xulrunner and building stuff against
> > it, *they* have to support it.  We would just use their patches.
>
> Well, I won't be the one trying to maintain it, hopefully.
>
> Moreover, there is still no "official" 1.9.0.1 tarball release (in
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/ ), just
> nightly snapshots.
>
> And FF 3.0.1 was released on July 16, ie 5 days ago..
>
> I guess it will be difficult to issue security updates with such a
> time lag..
>

SUSE, Fedora uses nightly builds, and there is nothing wrong with that.

--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor

www.mandriva.com
  _
 ( )
  X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-m