On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:04:00PM +0200, Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:00:22PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > Well, in the current state, it still requires a lot of work to split the > > package in smaller parts like mozilla, and add transition packages. It > > would also be necessary to port most of the patches from xulrunner to > > make it work on all debian architectures. > > Hmm... so should we take this over to make things happen faster? What > do you mean by "port most of the patches from xulrunner" ... won't > they apply cleanly?
Most should apply with no problem. But IIRC some kinda depend on the soname patch (the one to add sonames to the xulrunner libs), which is not a thing I want to see applied on seamonkey, firefox and others because they don't need to. But that work is not a very difficult one. Plus, I really need to do some triage in my patch-set, between build-system patches, code patches, debian-specific patches, etc. > So maybe we want to use seamonkey to see how good team maintainence > for mozillas can work? Jaldhar would you agree to set > [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the maintainer and > list all that contribute explicitly as co-maintainer? > > Mike, what do you think about it? I think this is a great idea. It would be a preliminary step for me to turn the xulrunner maintainance into a team one, which i'd like to see happen, but not before I've clearly documented the whys and the hows of the xulrunner packaging, which a team maintainance of seamonkey will help me doing. I hope to be able to switch xulrunner to a team maintainance soon after the etch release, then we'll be able to experiment building the other mozilla applications on top of it, which, by then, should almost be officially supported upstream. Cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
