Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:07:53PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:37:49PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> If the gcj plugin is making use of xpcom, it should require xulrunner-xpcom >>> too. >>> See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366113#c8 >> Still, this is an 11th-hour regression introduced by the new xulrunner, >> AFAICS. Even if the "bug" belongs to gcj-4.1, this change in xulrunner's >> behavior is grounds for not letting the new xulrunner into etch. Security >> updates need to not break related packages. > So what ? Better "fixing" xulrunner than gcj-4.1 ? This gets ridiculous.
At this time, we don't know which other third-party application rely on this specific xulrunner configuration, and I really don't want to risk to break anything else. It's easier to revert this change for xulrunner now instead of testing every possible r-dep. Marc -- BOFH #86: Runt packets
pgpRQ8ici75yr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
