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

Re: sense of packaging firefox' addons?



On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak redhat com> wrote:
>
>
>  On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:12 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>  > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak redhat com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 21:35 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek wrote:
>  > >  > hi,
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I saw Ubuntu is puting Firefox' addons to repo.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I wonder why, while Firefox has now integrated search for addons and
>  > >  > better addons site is planned...
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I don't think we should package extensions, but what do you think about
>  > >  > that situation in U?
>  > >
>  > >  Packaging addons makes perfect sense. As much as does packaging CPAN
>  > >  modules. You get benefits of a good packaging and update system with
>  > >  that. Obvious examples are ability to put the addon into repository and
>  > >  add it to your kickstart, or stay up-to date with security fixes.
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  > You take some very bad examples to highlight a need for packing and
>  > update system. Both the Firefox addons and CPAN modules already have
>  > good mechanisms for this.
>
>  They do not. They can never compare with updatesd, can not cooperate
>  with it. I am not aware if they integrate with policykit or
>  consolehelper to allow unprivileged user to update, not if they
>  integrate with puplet to let him know that he has to update.


I don't know about CPAN, but any user can install a Firefox
extension... if you moved it to RPM you would have to block firefox
from doing it itself, or would there be duplicates?


-- 
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )


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