Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner

> 2008/7/26, Steve Morris <samorris@...>:
> > 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
> >
> >
>