On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:07:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tags 413964 sid > thanks > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:37:49PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > If the gcj plugin is making use of xpcom, it should require xulrunner-xpcom > > too. > > > See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366113#c8 > > Still, this is an 11th-hour regression introduced by the new xulrunner, > AFAICS. Even if the "bug" belongs to gcj-4.1, this change in xulrunner's > behavior is grounds for not letting the new xulrunner into etch. Security > updates need to not break related packages.
So what ? Better "fixing" xulrunner than gcj-4.1 ? This gets ridiculous. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
