Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 23 juin 2008 à 11:50 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > > > If you use gnome, it will always be pulled by epiphany-extensions > > > anyway. > > > > It seemed to me that epiphany-extensions depends on epiphany-gecko, but > > that epiphany-browser was not pulled in by that. > > The epiphany-browser package only contains the /usr/bin/epiphany wrapper > script, which is only here for backwards compatibility, so no need for > it on new installations.
Won't the epiphany maintainers want people to still have epiphany installed to handle the transition to epiphany-webkit when it becomes default? > > > Upstream made the choice for us. Now that swfdec-gnome is part of the > > > official GNOME release (see gnome-desktop-environment), swfdec-mozilla > > > is only here to bring the browser on par with the desktop’s abilities. > > > > There's a big difference between choosing to use swfdec to display flash > > files from Desktop, and using it to display flash files from the whole > > web. Has the GNOME project really decided to use swfdec in browsers by > > default? All I was aware of was them having decided to use swfdec-gnome > > so far. > > As GNOME is moving away from Gecko, they are not promoting technologies > tied to it, but given that GNOME developers are working on swfdec, I > think it is only a matter of time until epiphany integrates swfdec one > way or another. It's clearly only a matter of time until either swfdec or gnash is included in desktops by default. Question is, is it time *yet*. If we had included these by default a year ago, we would have clearly done it too early. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature