* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:06:26PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Package: firefox
> > > Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3
> > > Severity: minor
> > > 
> > > The user-agent string:
> > > 
> > >     Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); rv:1.8.0.2)
> > >     Gecko/Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3 Firefox/1.5.0.2
> > > 
> > > violates Mozilla user-agent string specification
> > > [http://www.mozilla.org/build/revised-user-agent-strings.html], since the
> > > Gecko product token isn't in Gecko/YYYYMMDD format. While this requirement
> > > doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose, it still may be a good idea to
> > > follow it.
> > 
> > The Gecko/YYYYMMDD format is useless, that's why we replaced it with
> > more interesting value. See /usr/share/doc/firefox/changelog.Debian.gz.
> 
> Interestingly, the builds that use the Gecko/YYYYMMDD format don't
> follow the spec either.
> 
> The spec says:
>  GeckoVersion    Date in the format YYYYMMDD. For official Mozilla
>  builds, this will correspond to the date portion of the BuildID. For
>  branded versions of Mozilla, the GeckoVersion should correspond to the
>  date the code was pulled from mozilla.org, and may not necessarily
>  correspond to the date portion of the generated BuildID.
> 
> Actually, the GeckoVersion is *always* the date of the build. Which
> means if you build firefox 1.5 today, it will be Gecko/20060424, not
> Gecko/20051208.

I'm not seeing what us being different is buying us though. Sure, the
mozilla format is stupid, but there doesn't seem to be any advantage
to the way you've done it. It's ok for us to be different, but there
should be a good reason to be. 

-- 
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to