> On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:29:46PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: >> >> Requiring users to install an important component (which Mozilla is) from >> other sources is a bad idea in this context. I think it should not be the >> way how Debian solves it's problems. > > in thecase of mozilla this is not entirely true. I don't see any program > depending on mozilla (and not belonging to the mozilla-family) that > cannot be made dependant on other browsers.
Let me repeat. There are lots of sites - especially in non-latin segment of the net - for which mozilla/firefox is the only free browser that renders those correctly. So mozilla is important by itself, not as a dependency satisfier. > so it might be possible to write a script or dummy package that only > integrates an upstream-mozilla in the current debian-system (just like > those scripts that do the same for sun or ibm jre): > - user/admin installs mozilla from upstream > - installs mozilla-dummy > - runs `gimme-mozilla-upstream --make-it-default-browser` > - is - more or less - happy. Such solution seems ok for users (if made similat to msttcorefonts - apt-get install xxx and things are there). However, things with heavy dependences - like galeon - probably won't work that way. And I don't see much difference between this approach and allowing new upstream versions into stable. >> >> (2). If binary incompatibility is detected, >> > >> > ... which is most probably going to happen... >> >> Do you have enough statistics to make this statement? > > it happened to Mozilla and woody: upstream made mozilla depend on e > newer libc. There was no way to install a new mozilla on old stable. Seems that you mix source and binary dependences. It is possible to recompile against earlier libc. I doubt is used some libc function not present in earlier libc versions. >> >> these packages should conflict >> >> with incompatible versions of all packages in Debian that depend on >> > >> > So you provide mozilla, but throw out other packages away? >> >> Of course no. We should provide upgrades for all packages in the set at >> the same time. > > this will be, as already has been said, a hard job, should one of these > packages be one of the core libraries or packages (like libc, > gnome-something or others). I'm not suggesting to upload new upstream versions of dependent packages - I'm assuming that backporting there should me much easier than backpotring mozilla fixes. Maybe a simple recompile, or a trivial fix. And upstream may be more friendly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]