Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner

> Frederik Himpe wrote:
>> Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems there
>> were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
>> 1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
>> regularly published
>> 2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing the
>> exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages depending on
>> it whenever xulrunner gets updated
>>
>> I hope I found a solution to both problems:
>>
>> 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that you
>> can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I understand
>> it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that the Firefox source
>> pacakge stripped from the web browser specific GUI code. I can indeed
>> confirm I succeeded in building the xulrunner package with the firefox
>> sources.
>>
> As I understand it, this makes perfect sense as my reading of the info.
> on xulrunner is that is is nothing more than a web engine, which is how
> firefox is using it, and for it to be useful it requires a HIF so there
> should not be any issues using the Firefox sources.
>> 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
>> installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
>> xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
>> necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
>>
> This might be a stupid question, but why not install xulrunner in a
> directory name xulrunner, why is there this unnecessary dependency on
> psuedo version numbers in the directory name. This sort of naming
> convention went out with the dinosaurs on other platforms.
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
>