XULRunner - will be or won't be?

[Christopher Aillon]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:43:24 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application
>> packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going
>> to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner.  Enough of
>> them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in
>> the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
> 
> This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of 
> reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be 
> change, potentially upstream.  We need to be more proactive about touting 
> these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through.  
> We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other 
> distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
> 

Actually, I think the other big ones have taken the lead here and gotten 
most of the work done.  Pretty much all the apps that depend on it have 
gotten fixed upstream already, and all I expect is for packagers to 
switch from BuildRequires: gecko-devel = 1.8.0.13 to BuildRequires: 
gecko-devel = 1.9.