On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:46:13PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:50:37AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > > > > Gnash maintainers: Do you think gnash overall stability is currently in a > > > good > > > state for lenny? If not, how viable is it to make it rock-solid by that > > > time? > > > > I think it is stable enough to be included in Lenny, but it is not perfect > > yet, as you might imagine :) > > So do you think the stabilization process for lenny will efficiently hammer > out any outstanding regressions [1] ? Also, do you think the increased > visibility / exposition that my proposed change implies would help [2] on > this? > (and if so, is this an appropiate time, or is it too early?).
(I assume this is about installing gnash by default ...) The negative thing about installing gnash by default is that normal users won't really notice what they are running and might perceive debian in general as "being-broken" if they visit a site that has not-support flash content. Further, there is no way to tell users easily that there might be a bad, but working solution (nonfree). Afterall, this the main reason why we still don't ship gnash preinstalled in ubuntu. However, instead of doing nothing we setup a plugin database which is useful for other content types as well. If you think this would be a viable thing to do for debian, we could include the debian plugins in our database or setup a new one running on people.debian.org or somewhere else. Here some screenshots of the results of the firefox plugin finder service in ubuntu: http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/pfs/screens/pfs1.png (video/mpeg) http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/pfs/screens/pfs3.png (application/x-shockwave-flash) - Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
