Bug#511477: iceape: Shouldn't release with Lenny
jmm at inutil.org
Sun Jan 25 13:45:41 UTC 2009
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:34:51PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:29:36AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > > > > > Two approaches to resolve this have been proposed:
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I know, there should be patches in Ubuntu to build some of
> > > > > the packages you listed against xulrunner 1.9; I guess that would be
> > > > > the best solution. I'm not sure icedove / xulrunner 1.8 will be
> > > > > maintainable for a long period.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wonder whether mozilla-bonobo can be dropped.
> > > >
> > > > After a bit more investigation it appears as if solution (2)
> > > > won't work, since iceape-dev itself depends on iceape-browser.
> > >
> > > Do you mean depends as in debian/control, or as in dropping the
> > > package dependency doesn't work?
> > As in debian/control:
> > Package: iceape-dev
> > [..]
> > Depends: iceape-browser (>= 1.1.14), iceape-browser (<= 1.1.14-1.1~), iceape-dev-bin (>= 1.1.14), libnspr4-dev
> > Or is the dependency not technically needed for the use cases, which
> > remain in the archive?
> Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in
> the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything needing iceape-browser
> files, but that's only an assumption. That's why I asked to check
> whether they build without iceape-browser installed.
Ok, I'll try a few test builds tonight and post my findings to this bug.
More information about the pkg-mozilla-maintainers