Mike Hommey writes: > 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.
That's not the point. How did you prove that this (and maybe related changes) did not break anything else but just gcj-4.1? We known upstream's behaviour, but Debian shouldn't follow it. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
