Strange about firefox patches is, some of them are months old and they aren't fixed in upstream. There are patches prepared so why don't they include it in official pkgs?
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:27, Jan de Groot wrote: > Keep it simple yes, but also make it working. I think you're referencing > my Firefox builds now, which contained like 20 patches for 1.0.x and now > it has something like 10 patches left for 1.5.x. The reason to do so is > to make it work better with programs that want a gecko rendering engine, > like galeon and epiphany (without patching, you can't use typeaheadfind > in both of them, several bugs appear, etc). Other option would be to > keep firefox clean and build against mozilla, but then you would have a > huge internet suite on your system which won't get actively developed > anymore. > Most of the times when I add a patch, I describe what it does in the CVS > changelogs. For firefox I didn't do so: I named the patches according to > the bugzilla IDs at mozilla and gnome. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
