On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:09:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:16:57PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > For now, the iceape-dev package still exists and depends on > > > xulrunner-dev, > > > which may provide a smooth upgrade path, and your package may build > > > properly this way (i.e. a binNMU would work) > > > > Actually, not. We even need a patch fixing build with xulrunner 1.9.1 > > whereas 1.9 works. Not to mention it will expect iceape*.pc, > > not the one of xulrunner... > > Well, most other packages are trying several different pkg-config files, > so it works for most. > > Anyways, as per the xulrunner plan for *lenny*, only plugins and > extensions for iceape should be building against iceape-dev, and > therefore should build perfectly fine with xulrunner-dev, modulo > the pc check. I really wonder what in OOo fails to build with > xulrunner-dev. > > > > But the iceape-dev package is going to be removed from the archive before > > > the squeeze release, so please switch to using xulrunner-dev anyways. > > > > OK. A bit advance warning would have been *really* nice, though.... > > Sorry for that, but iceape 2.0 was deemed to be uploaded some day, and > iceape 1.1 was even removed from testing by request of the security team > a few days ago.
Also note that even if iceape 2.0 was providing a non dummy iceape-dev package, its content would basically be that of xulrunner-dev, as iceape 2.0 is based on gecko 1.9.1. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
