« Return to Thread: [Cooker] [RPM] cooker contrib/release xulrunner-1.9-1mdv2009.0
Re: [Cooker] [RPM] cooker contrib/release xulrunner-1.9-1mdv2009.0
by Vincent Danen-2
::
Rate this Message:
* [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 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.
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.
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/
attachment0 (201 bytes) « Return to Thread: [Cooker] [RPM] cooker contrib/release xulrunner-1.9-1mdv2009.0
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
