Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
ma.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
A quick repoquery on rawhide (and f23) shows the following packages require xulrunner:
chatzilla-0:0.9.87-10.1450hg.fc23.noarch chmsee-0:2.0.2-23.gitd40ff7da.fc24.x86_64 esc-0:1.1.0-24.fc21.x86_64 gecko-sharp2-0:0.13-29.fc23.x86_64 nss-gui-0:0.3.10-20.fc24.x86_64 pencil-0:2.0.5-3.fc23.noarch
josh
On 01/26/2016 01:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
A quick repoquery on rawhide (and f23) shows the following packages require xulrunner:
chatzilla-0:0.9.87-10.1450hg.fc23.noarch chmsee-0:2.0.2-23.gitd40ff7da.fc24.x86_64 esc-0:1.1.0-24.fc21.x86_64 gecko-sharp2-0:0.13-29.fc23.x86_64 nss-gui-0:0.3.10-20.fc24.x86_64 pencil-0:2.0.5-3.fc23.noarch
FWIW, my repoquery shows a few more packages requiring xulrunner in f24:
chatzilla chmsee esc freewrl gecko-sharp2 gnash icedtea-web mediatomb nss-gui PackageKit pencil spice-xpi
On 26/01/16 14:10, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
pencil
pencil did not had any release for a longer time (although they directly recommend downloading a fedora 19 package, the latest build made by the package maintainer was 2 years ago for f20.
Maybe it's time to retire it completely?
Matthias
On 01/26/2016 09:33 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 26/01/16 14:10, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
pencil
pencil did not had any release for a longer time (although they directly recommend downloading a fedora 19 package, the latest build made by the package maintainer was 2 years ago for f20.
Maybe it's time to retire it completely?
I am package maintainer for pencil. I see some people around me still using pencil for their day job.
I have just got updates from upstream developers. A new version of pencil has been released [1]. I uses Electron, instead of XULrunner.
I am planning to update the package to keep pencil on the next Fedora releases. However, as I have checked on the wiki, Electron package [2] has not been officially put into Fedora repo. What should I do now? Any suggestions?
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 06:40, Truong Anh Tuan wrote:
On 01/26/2016 09:33 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 26/01/16 14:10, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
pencil
pencil did not had any release for a longer time (although they directly recommend downloading a fedora 19 package, the latest build made by the package maintainer was 2 years ago for f20.
Maybe it's time to retire it completely?
I am package maintainer for pencil. I see some people around me still using pencil for their day job.
I have just got updates from upstream developers. A new version of pencil has been released [1]. I uses Electron, instead of XULrunner.
I am planning to update the package to keep pencil on the next Fedora releases. However, as I have checked on the wiki, Electron package [2] has not been officially put into Fedora repo. What should I do now? Any suggestions?
You can ask Brenton to submit the electron package for review and maintain it in Fedora or you can do it yourself.
Regards, Dominik
On 27/06/17 10:11, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 06:40, Truong Anh Tuan wrote:
I have just got updates from upstream developers. A new version of pencil has been released [1]. I uses Electron, instead of XULrunner.
I am planning to update the package to keep pencil on the next Fedora releases. However, as I have checked on the wiki, Electron package [2] has not been officially put into Fedora repo. What should I do now? Any suggestions?
You can ask Brenton to submit the electron package for review and maintain it in Fedora or you can do it yourself.
I'm guessing you haven't seen the dependency tree for electron if you think it's that easy ;-)
To be honest I'm struggling to even make sense of what exactly constitutes "electron" as such because the npm module of that name appears to basically be an installer for a prebuilt node and chrome!
I believe that behind that there are then a zillion other electron-* npm modules no doubt each with their own crazy dependency hell.
Tom
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 10:23 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 27/06/17 10:11, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 06:40, Truong Anh Tuan wrote:
I have just got updates from upstream developers. A new version of pencil has been released [1]. I uses Electron, instead of XULrunner.
I am planning to update the package to keep pencil on the next Fedora releases. However, as I have checked on the wiki, Electron package [2] has not been officially put into Fedora repo. What should I do now? Any suggestions?
You can ask Brenton to submit the electron package for review and maintain it in Fedora or you can do it yourself.
I'm guessing you haven't seen the dependency tree for electron if you think it's that easy ;-)
To be honest I'm struggling to even make sense of what exactly constitutes "electron" as such because the npm module of that name appears to basically be an installer for a prebuilt node and chrome!
I believe that behind that there are then a zillion other electron-* npm modules no doubt each with their own crazy dependency hell.
And it is likely each app will require different versions of all those modules, those versions being incompatible with each others.
At that point, bundling with something like Flatpak becomes more interesting than packaging all those separately.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Mathieu Bridon bochecha@daitauha.fr wrote:
And it is likely each app will require different versions of all those modules, those versions being incompatible with each others.
At that point, bundling with something like Flatpak becomes more interesting than packaging all those separately.
Or port the app from Electron to WebKit, which seems to be the only web engine out there with a stable API. Sad to say that the Electron ecosystem just does not seem designed to be packaged by Linux distributions.
I agree that Flatpak is probably your best bet for getting this software to users.
Michael
On 06/27/2017 06:50 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Or port the app from Electron to WebKit, which seems to be the only web engine out there with a stable API.
WebKit is much lower-level than Electron; it requires C++ programming; and (from what I heard in the JavaFX WebEngine group) updating to a new WebKit version was a fair amount of work.
I recently ported the DomTerm terminal emulator to Electron and it is very nice (multi-pane, menus, etc). At this port the Electron port is the preferred port.
I think the best alternative at this time using Fedora packages is QtWebEngine. I have a QtWebEngine port of DomTerm, but it is written in C++ and is more verbose and harder to maintain.
The Qt ecosystem (QXML, QtScript, QtQuick, QtWebEngine) might be a good alternative to Electron, but I haven't yet found documentation/example code that makes it as simple and clear. I probably haven't looked far enough.
Regardless, getting Electron packages for Fedora would be highly desirable.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually).
Mozilla
does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
A quick repoquery on rawhide (and f23) shows the following packages require xulrunner:
chatzilla-0:0.9.87-10.1450hg.fc23.noarch chmsee-0:2.0.2-23.gitd40ff7da.fc24.x86_64
chmsee - upstream has stopped making new releases for it long time ago. I am about to remove this package.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually).
Mozilla
does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
A quick repoquery on rawhide (and f23) shows the following packages require xulrunner:
chatzilla-0:0.9.87-10.1450hg.fc23.noarch
It's been a while since I've used it, but chatzilla appears to still under active development here: https://hg.mozilla.org/chatzilla/shortlog.
However, the package appears to be five releases behind now (0.9.92 was released last August according to Wikipedia), and I don't know what chatzilla upstream is planning to do as a result of Firefox deprecating XUL.
Ben Rosser
On 01/27/2016 10:17 PM, Ben Rosser wrote:
It's been a while since I've used it, but chatzilla appears to still under active development here: https://hg.mozilla.org/chatzilla/shortlog.
Yes, it is still somewhat active. I am one of the upstream developers.
However, the package appears to be five releases behind now (0.9.92 was released last August according to Wikipedia), and I don't know what chatzilla upstream is planning to do as a result of Firefox deprecating XUL.
Unfortunately, the packager has abandoned it and was not able to sponsor me as a co-maintainer. I have been maintaining an updated package for myself, it's a very easy package to maintain.
As for the XUL deprecation, we haven't decided yet what to do about that.
On 01/28/2016 08:52 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 01/27/2016 10:17 PM, Ben Rosser wrote:
It's been a while since I've used it, but chatzilla appears to still under active development here: https://hg.mozilla.org/chatzilla/shortlog.
Yes, it is still somewhat active. I am one of the upstream developers.
However, the package appears to be five releases behind now (0.9.92 was released last August according to Wikipedia), and I don't know what chatzilla upstream is planning to do as a result of Firefox deprecating XUL.
Unfortunately, the packager has abandoned it and was not able to sponsor me as a co-maintainer. I have been maintaining an updated package for myself, it's a very easy package to maintain.
Hi,
If you'd like to maintain the package please start the "unresponsive maintainer" process as described here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
and may be transferred to you.
ma.
On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
Richard.
On 2016-01-26 08:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com wrote:
On 2016-01-26 08:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
Mozilla is deprecating npapi plugins.
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
josh
On 26 January 2016 at 10:18, Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com wrote:
On 2016-01-26 08:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
Will browser plugins still exist when these changes go through?
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
Will browser plugins still exist when these changes go through?
They are moving to Web Extensions for those sort of things basically the same as Chrome uses.
On 2016-01-26 18:11, Peter Robinson wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
Will browser plugins still exist when these changes go through?
They are moving to Web Extensions for those sort of things basically the same as Chrome uses.
What is the plan for the GNOME Shell browser plugin (which is required for extensions.gnome.org)?
On 01/26/2016 06:48 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 26 January 2016 at 10:18, Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com wrote:
On 2016-01-26 08:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
PackageKit has a npapi plugin that I'm guessing is soon going to stop working. When that happens I guess we can drop this dep.
If xulrunner is removed, then something else will need to provide npapi-sdk in order to continue to build browser plugins.
Will browser plugins still exist when these changes go through?
Will exist a browser which can run this plugin? Firefox is going to remove NPAPI plugin support (it's disabled by default now), Chrome already did so. Does Web (Epiphany) run NPAPI?
ms.
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:11 +0100, Martin Stransky wrote:
Will exist a browser which can run this plugin? Firefox is going to remove NPAPI plugin support (it's disabled by default now), Chrome already did so. Does Web (Epiphany) run NPAPI?
Yes, we intend to continue supporting NPAPI plugins. However, NPAPI plugins are not currently supported under Wayland. We intend to add support for windowless plugins, such as the GNOME Shell browser plugin; the support is already written (it's awaiting code review), so it should be ready prior to F24.
Windowed plugins (Flash, Java, etc.) will not be supported under Wayland. We will continue to support them under X11 indefinitely.
Michael
On 01/27/2016 06:26 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:11 +0100, Martin Stransky wrote:
Will exist a browser which can run this plugin? Firefox is going to remove NPAPI plugin support (it's disabled by default now), Chrome already did so. Does Web (Epiphany) run NPAPI?
Yes, we intend to continue supporting NPAPI plugins. However, NPAPI plugins are not currently supported under Wayland. We intend to add support for windowless plugins, such as the GNOME Shell browser plugin; the support is already written (it's awaiting code review), so it should be ready prior to F24.
Windowed plugins (Flash, Java, etc.) will not be supported under Wayland. We will continue to support them under X11 indefinitely.
As for building NPAPI plugins, there's a separate project that only ships the required headers. I've forgotten what it's called, but Debian uses it to build their NPAPI plugins and it probably needs just packaging up if the plan is to drop xulrunner. The pkgconfig file name is different from xulrunner's, but since Debian already uses it I expect most project are already checking both pkgconfig names.
On 01/27/2016 07:28 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
As for building NPAPI plugins, there's a separate project that only ships the required headers. I've forgotten what it's called, but Debian uses it to build their NPAPI plugins and it probably needs just packaging up if the plan is to drop xulrunner. The pkgconfig file name is different from xulrunner's, but since Debian already uses it I expect most project are already checking both pkgconfig names.
https://github.com/mozilla/npapi-sdk
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 19:28 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 01/27/2016 06:26 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:11 +0100, Martin Stransky wrote:
Will exist a browser which can run this plugin? Firefox is going to remove NPAPI plugin support (it's disabled by default now), Chrome already did so. Does Web (Epiphany) run NPAPI?
Yes, we intend to continue supporting NPAPI plugins. However, NPAPI plugins are not currently supported under Wayland. We intend to add support for windowless plugins, such as the GNOME Shell browser plugin; the support is already written (it's awaiting code review), so it should be ready prior to F24.
Windowed plugins (Flash, Java, etc.) will not be supported under Wayland. We will continue to support them under X11 indefinitely.
As for building NPAPI plugins, there's a separate project that only ships the required headers. I've forgotten what it's called, but Debian uses it to build their NPAPI plugins and it probably needs just packaging up if the plan is to drop xulrunner. The pkgconfig file name is different from xulrunner's, but since Debian already uses it I expect most project are already checking both pkgconfig names.
npapi-sdk
A patch for PackageKit was submitted upstream years ago by openSUSE:
On Jan 27, 2016 12:26, "Michael Catanzaro" mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:11 +0100, Martin Stransky wrote:
Will exist a browser which can run this plugin? Firefox is going to remove NPAPI plugin support (it's disabled by default now), Chrome already did so. Does Web (Epiphany) run NPAPI?
Yes, we intend to continue supporting NPAPI plugins. However, NPAPI plugins are not currently supported under Wayland. We intend to add support for windowless plugins, such as the GNOME Shell browser plugin; the support is already written (it's awaiting code review), so it should be ready prior to F24.
What can use the plugins if the major user no longer does? Don't the other tools rely on xulrunner to use the plugons
Windowed plugins (Flash, Java, etc.) will not be supported under Wayland. We will continue to support them under X11 indefinitely.
Michael
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 27 January 2016 at 18:35, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
What can use the plugins if the major user no longer does? Don't the other tools rely on xulrunner to use the plugons
I'm kinda thinking of removing the PackageKit plugin from Fedora just because of this; if it exists and doesn't work, what's the point?
Richard
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:41:55PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 27 January 2016 at 18:35, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
What can use the plugins if the major user no longer does? Don't the other tools rely on xulrunner to use the plugons
I'm kinda thinking of removing the PackageKit plugin from Fedora just because of this; if it exists and doesn't work, what's the point?
So why is all this functionality being removed? What is supposed to replace NPAPI, and can our plugins be modified to work with whatever that new thing is?
On 27 January 2016 at 18:53, Chuck Anderson cra@wpi.edu wrote:
So why is all this functionality being removed? What is supposed to replace NPAPI, and can our plugins be modified to work with whatever that new thing is?
https://www.chromium.org/developers/npapi-deprecation -- for GNOME Software our plan is to migrate people to use appstream://gimp style links in webpages.
Richard.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Chuck Anderson cra@wpi.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:41:55PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 27 January 2016 at 18:35, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
What can use the plugins if the major user no longer does? Don't the other tools rely on xulrunner to use the plugons
I'm kinda thinking of removing the PackageKit plugin from Fedora just because of this; if it exists and doesn't work, what's the point?
So why is all this functionality being removed? What is supposed to replace NPAPI, and can our plugins be modified to work with whatever that new thing is?
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
Not all plugins use NPAPI, but it looks like NPAPI support is going away (gone in Chrome already) and Mozilla is recommended all plugins use W3C Web APIs, or create an add-on. And in effect plugin support is also going away in Firefox, with a legacy exception for Flash. Add-ons have the ability to modify appearance and themes so that'd be the way forward for theming Firefox. But I'm guessing there's not much overlap for code reuse between a plugin using NPAPI and an Add-on.
On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 11:35 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
What can use the plugins if the major user no longer does?
Nothing. You should switch to using HTML 5 technologies. Chrome dropped support for NPAPI already. Firefox will drop support by the end of the year. This has been in the making for years and plugin vendors have been working for years to transition to HTML 5 technologies. It's unfortunate that you're just now learning about it if NPAPI is important to you.
WebKitGTK+ will continue to support NPAPI under X11.
Don't the other tools rely on xulrunner to use the plugons
No, WebKit's implementation is completely independent.
Michael
-
Ben Rosser -
Chris Murphy -
Chuck Anderson -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Josh Boyer -
Kalev Lember -
Martin Stransky -
Mathieu Bridon -
Matthias Runge -
Michael Catanzaro -
Michael Catanzaro -
Mikolaj Izdebski -
Per Bothner -
Peter Robinson -
Richard Hughes -
Samuel Sieb -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Hughes -
Truong Anh Tuan -
Yaakov Selkowitz -
Yuan Yijun