On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 03:03:19AM +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: > gnome depends on xul-ext-adblock-plus. … > So, I would like to know if someone knows why this dependency > exists, instead of a recommendation or suggestion.
I was curious so I investigated. The dependency was added in this commit¹ with the message "Require firefox extensions that match epiphany functionality: keyring, adblock." Looking at the commit log, an earlier commit sheds some more light²: "Install iceweasel instead of epiphany :( See bug#682481." So, GNOME proper includes the Epiphany browser, but Debian's GNOME metapackage omits it due to the lack of security support. Iceweasel is used in its place, and the XUL* extensions are also depended upon so that users have the same level of functionality as Epiphany has. That's the logic, but the consequence is lots of problems as #689858 indicates. It seems to me that attempting to get feature parity with Epiphany is a nice goal, but perhaps not mission critical: would the GNOME maintainers not consider moving the xul-* dependencies to Recommends? The last consensual message to #682481 seemed to suggest that depending on chromium made more sense than Iceweasel, so I don't know why that wasn't done, but perhaps it could. I haven't seen any comment from the GNOME maintainers regarding this suggestion. ¹ http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome3/debian/control?revision=35790&view=markup ² http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome3/debian/control?revision=35758&view=markup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131017084332.ga4...@bryant.redmars.org
