[Summary for -release: Is removing liferea-gtkhtml too disruptive for etch?]
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:04:29PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:36:20PM -0600, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > > Upstream's response to #361376 is to recommend the dropping of > > liferea-gtkhtml from 64bit arches. How does one go about that? > > Change the Architecture: field for liferea-gtkhtml in debian/control to list > the 32-bit archs, instead of "any". > > But wouldn't it be fine to just drop this binary package on all archs? I > seem to remember that liferea-gtkhtml has had other problems on all archs in > the past, and that the -xulrunner variant was recommended? Yes, Lars has stated his intention to completely remove this rendering engine. To do so, I'd assume the right way to go would be to turn -gtkhtml into a dummy package that pulls -xulrunner in. In that case, the separate liferea-xulrunner package would be rather pointless, as liferea would just pull it inconditionally. Should both packages be just merged into one? Would *that* be too much of a change to get into etch? -- Rodrigo Gallardo GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28 Zenophobia: the irrational fear of convergent sequences.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
