On 06.02.2012 21:04, Florian Hubold wrote:
Am 12.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Florian Hubold:
Am 07.01.2012 18:36, schrieb Florian Hubold:
Am 16.04.2011 16:05, schrieb Christiaan Welvaart:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Tux99 wrote:
I just downloaded the latest Seamonkey 2.0.12 SRPM from Mandriva cooker and
rebuilt it on my Mageia VM and it built flawlessly, I only had to remove
all the obsolete "%if %mdkversion" sections, but all dependecies are
available in Mageia.
So technically importing Seamonkey into Mageia seems straightforward, the
only issue is licensing (as for Firefox).
Christiaan I'm a newbie packager here at Mageia so personally I'd much
prefer if you maintain this package for Mageia, it looks far too complex
for me. :)
I uploaded "iceape 2.0.12" a few days ago, changing the name and icons/logo
took me almost a month. Unfortunately there are still some bugs in this
area: the release notes menu item for example currently still points to
seamonkey. It should probably point to a mageia wiki page.
Since I don't like the icons that is used for debian's iceape, I created a
new icon based on the logo. It looks like it can still be improved, however,
and the throbber is currently static. So it would be great if someone could
re-do the icon (without creating a completely new design), and animate it for
the throbber (he SVG files are in iceape-branding.tar in the source rpm and
svn)...
Christiaan
As iceape for mga1 hasn't seen any update in the last 6 months,
and there are multiple serious security issues that need fixing,
how do we handle this?
And i've found no real reason for this rebranding in the first place,
and this seems also be the case for Fedora, and they have a strong
legal department.
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=seamonkey.git
> From what i read on bugreports between debian packagers and
mozilla guys about that branding situation, the only thing that would
need to be done to seamonkey (actually the same would need to
be done for all our mozilla packages, unless we have permission
to use the branding, which would imply that all our modifications
on mozilla packages would need to be reviewed and ack-ed by mozilla
to get the branding permission) would be to use --disable-official-branding
configure option.
Ping?
Pinging again, because nobody replied. This should also be discussed
at next packager meeting, together with the situation according the branding
of other mozilla packages. Because we have branding enabled, which we shouldn't
have as we can't use branding AND have modified builds (different than upstream
tarball)
without approval of all modifications from mozilla.
For reference, here's the upstream report i was talking about, which i've
recently found again:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935
--
resending because of maintainer mail adress typo
In my opinion we can drop that package, and in its place have
Firefox-ESR, next to standard Firefox.
