Comment 4 for bug 137993

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:24AM -0000, Cesare Tirabassi wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that www browsers should be made recommendations and
> not dependencies.
> Let me quote the debian policy:
>
> The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required
> for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
> functionality.
>
> While:
>
> The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together
> with this one in all but unusual installations.
>
> Now, I hope you agree that to provide a significant amount of
> functionality for this plugin a www browser is needed?
>
> Whether it makes sense or not to add xulrunner to the list of dependancies
> (or-ed!) its a matter of testing it.
> For instance, I have not added it to gecko-mediaplayer yet (from the same
> upstream author) simply because I don't have any evidence that it will work.
> Just the fact that it makes sense that it works is not enough (for instance
> gecko-mediaplayer should work with Opera and Konqueror, but it doesn't).
> Can you perhaps test it and confirm if the mozilla-mplayer works with xul
> based applications (via xulrunner)?

I've tested it. It works.

Why should plugin-browser combinations have to be tested by package maintainers?
That just doesn't seem very fair to users that want to use a less popular
browser. They'll end up waiting a release or two before the dependencies will
be in their favor.

I guess it'd be nice if it could Depend: gecko-browser ...

-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net