On 2/3/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Firefox
> and Mozilla each will install their own copy of libnullplugin.so in
> the respective plugin directory of each package. Each package uses
> its own copy.
OK, I thought you meant that the plugins dirs for each product would
be wiped and a symlink to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins made.
> I'm leaning to not doing
> a darn thing about the plugins dir, other than do like the Firefox
> instructions and say, "you can copy or link to any existing plugins
> you may have in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins".
Yeah, I think that's plenty of information. Any half competent Linux
user can figure out how to move the plugins around and make symlinks
to their preference.
> It is about the fact that currently in the
> Mozilla instructions, there are commands to create links from
> /usr/lib/mozilla and /usr/include/mozilla to the respective dirs
> in the /usr/{lib,include}/mozilla-1.7.12 tree.
Sorry. I wasn't looking at the Mozilla instructions. I don't like
these symlinks.
> I'm saying we should ditch this support for the stupid, broken
> programs. Bruce had a good idea, sent offline, in that we perhaps
> should remove these commands to create the links and actually see
> if there is any breakage, and if so, report it upstream and/or
> patch the problem.
I'm definitely down for removing the symlinks. I never like
compatibility symlinks, and I'd much rather just fix the packages to
install where we want.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
