[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Suggestion: separate gecko package?



On man, 2007-05-21 at 18:00 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I just though a little about how effective (or rather the opposite) my Fedora 
> installation is regarding web software. I mean, I use, for various reasons, 
> epiphany which needs gecko to run, liferea feed reader which uses gecko 
> (optionally?), listen which uses gecko via python bindings, etc. and firefox - 
> which I do not use  - to provide the gecko libraries. And what more? I have TWO 
> geckos in my machine! Thunderbird has its own one.
> 
> I don't want to complain much more about it, but I just thought it would be more 
> effective if gecko, as is usual with linux libraries, would be distributed 
> separately from firefox/thunderbird/seamonkey and maybe even those patched to 
> use shared gecko instead of their own. While it would make development of 
> mozilla web software harder, I think it would have great benefit for development 
> of many other packages which depends on gecko-libs and in turn need to be 
> rebuilt every time firefox is updated. Also I think it would make sense if we'd 
> cooperate with mozilla in this case as much as possible.
> 
> What do you think? Is it reasonable? Is it even possible? Does it make sense to 
> you? I just would like to bring a discussion about this and maybe offer some 
> help with it afterwards (in case we would chose to make it separate).

XULRunner should hopefully bring about world peace by delivering this
functionality, stripping out gecko from seperate applications by hand is
a futile exercise in impossibility. 

Vote XULRunner 2008, for improved sanity and fewer outbursts of Mozilla
Foundation induced anger. You say lesser evil like it's a bad thing!

- David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]