Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 14:48 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
I, for one, would like to see this; there's so much good stuff in FF3. Are you also planning to land Prism? Or is that a separate feature? Thanks!
David
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 17:19 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 14:48 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
I, for one, would like to see this; there's so much good stuff in FF3. Are you also planning to land Prism? Or is that a separate feature? Thanks!
Chris is on top of this, I believe.
He said they'd start looking into FF3 as soon as the xulrunner conversion is done.
On 12/02/2007 08:48 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
Help with rebuilding the stack against xulrunner. As soon as we're no longer relying on firefox 2 for our apps, and built against xulrunner, we'll simply rebase. No need for branches.
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:48:01 -0500, Colin Walters scripst:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
That it is useless IMHO -- FF3 is very high on the Chris' and Martin's TODO list.
Matěj
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:24 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:48:01 -0500, Colin Walters scripst:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
That it is useless IMHO -- FF3 is very high on the Chris' and Martin's TODO list.
Having the feature is useless? Or a branch?
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere) and plugins (e.g. Totem) that will require testing and possibly porting. Actually I know Mugshot will need a bit of porting to pick up the new cookie file format (http://bugzilla.mugshot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1307).
Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:24 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:48:01 -0500, Colin Walters scripst:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
That it is useless IMHO -- FF3 is very high on the Chris' and Martin's TODO list.
Having the feature is useless? Or a branch?
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere)
afaik beagle too
On 03.12.2007 16:03, Colin Walters wrote:
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere)
I don't think we ship any besides Mugshot -- and if I'm wrong on that I'm sure they are very rare because we have no guidelines for packaging them. Some packages with extensions were put up for review but they iirc got stuck.
Which brings me to my question: Does anyone know if Firefox 3 makes it easier to package extensions (that was planed iirc)? Should we prepare guidelines for packaging extensions?
CU knurd
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 17:09 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.12.2007 16:03, Colin Walters wrote:
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere)
I don't think we ship any besides Mugshot --
drago01 pointed out Beagle. As an aside, we need a search-across-all-package-content system.
Which brings me to my question: Does anyone know if Firefox 3 makes it easier to package extensions (that was planed iirc)? Should we prepare guidelines for packaging extensions?
I don't think there were any changes to the extension mechanism specifically for this (I could be wrong though), but if we do work on this would make a lot of sense to design the system in the context of upstream.
Realistically the Firefox binary has to be aware of the distinction between system managed and per-user extensions. I don't think it is right now, because at least currently it seems that Firefox tries to find updates to all the localization packages we install, which is wrong because they're managed by the system. (Incidentally this also seems to be part of the reason Firefox is so slow to start the first time).
There would need to be UI changes in the addon manager to mark which are system managed vs not, etc.
On 12/03/2007 05:09 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.12.2007 16:03, Colin Walters wrote:
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere)
I don't think we ship any besides Mugshot -- and if I'm wrong on that I'm sure they are very rare because we have no guidelines for packaging them. Some packages with extensions were put up for review but they iirc got stuck.
Which brings me to my question: Does anyone know if Firefox 3 makes it easier to package extensions (that was planed iirc)? Should we prepare guidelines for packaging extensions?
Once we get closer to having Firefox v3 (or rather a pre-release of it) in rawhide, I'll draft them.
On 03.12.2007 18:02, Christopher Aillon wrote:
On 12/03/2007 05:09 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.12.2007 16:03, Colin Walters wrote:
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere)
I don't think we ship any besides Mugshot -- and if I'm wrong on that I'm sure they are very rare because we have no guidelines for packaging them. Some packages with extensions were put up for review but they iirc got stuck. Which brings me to my question: Does anyone know if Firefox 3 makes it easier to package extensions (that was planed iirc)? Should we prepare guidelines for packaging extensions?
Once we get closer to having Firefox v3 (or rather a pre-release of it) in rawhide, I'll draft them.
thx caillon!
CU knurd
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 10:03 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:24 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:48:01 -0500, Colin Walters scripst:
Hi,
I tossed up a Feature page for Fx3:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3
I put my and Chris' name on it. Tentatively thinking of making a branch in CVS where we could collaborate on it and do koji scratch builds from; any opinions on that?
That it is useless IMHO -- FF3 is very high on the Chris' and Martin's TODO list.
Having the feature is useless? Or a branch?
The reason I created it is because it isn't actually as trivial as just changing everything to XulRunner and updating the Firefox package - we do ship Firefox extensions (at least in Mugshot, perhaps elsewhere) and plugins (e.g. Totem) that will require testing and possibly porting. Actually I know Mugshot will need a bit of porting to pick up the new cookie file format (http://bugzilla.mugshot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1307).
Plugins should "just work". They should work for both XulRunner-based apps and FF3 once compiled against XulRunner. Otherwise porting to XulRunner is a bit pointless...
Totem in rawhide is already compiled against XulRunner.
It's just the extensions that would have problems.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bastien Nocera -
Christopher Aillon -
Colin Walters -
David Zeuthen -
drago01 -
Matej Cepl -
Matthias Clasen -
Thorsten Leemhuis