Please remove xulrunner-1.9.1 source, binaries and remaining rdepends from Lucid

Hm, when looking at the existing reverse dependencies, I see some packages which you haven't mentioned:

-- lucid/universe i386 deps on xulrunner-1.9.1:
mozplugger
python-hulahop
xul-ext-firebug
xul-ext-flashgot
-- lucid/universe build deps on xulrunner-1.9.1-dev:
mongodb
sugar-hulahop
xiphos

What about those?

Ah sorry, those are alternative dependencies, nevermind.

2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO Removing candidates:
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid i386
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid ia64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid powerpc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid sparc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid i386
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid ia64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid powerpc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid sparc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid i386
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid ia64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid powerpc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid sparc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid i386
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid ia64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid powerpc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-gnome-support 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid sparc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid i386
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid ia64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid powerpc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid sparc
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid amd64
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xulrunner-1.9.1-testsuite-dev 1.9.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 in lucid armel
2010-04-21 12:23:27 INFO xul...

i trust that nobody's been stupid enough to remove pyjamas without consulting the developers and the users. there have been a number of complaints - we get about one every three weeks - that pyjamas-desktop does not work because the bugreports on how to successfully fix python-hulahop by running "autoreconf" are being ignored.

now we have complaints that pyjamas has been _entirely removed_ and that is just .... why the fuck don't you people _consult_ us?

there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to remove pyjamas _just_ because one of the sub-dependencies (just _one_ of the projects) doesn't work [because you can't be fucking bothered to read bugreports].

i'm getting absolutely sick of having to redirect people complaining on the pyjamas-dev list about how pyjamas "doesn't work" because you're not doing your jobs.

fucking well sort yourselves out.

_please_.

As someone with an interest in Pyjamas which is potentially affected by the above removals, can someone explain to me in simple terms why it was actually neccesary to remove anything in the first place? From how I read the description some things were split into seperate packages (which is fine), but now these packages are not being included in Lucid... why?

Secondly, if this decision cannot be reversed and/or the irritation avoided in the short term, can a developer ppa not be set up in the interim to support current Ubuntu users relying on xulrunner (and friends) in prior editions of Ubuntu who upgrade to Lucid (and who will be "stuck up crap-creek in a barbwire canoe without a paddle" with respect to things that use xulrunner if the above remains as is?...)

@Prins: From what I can tell,Pyjamas depended on python-hulahop, which uses python-xpcom, which is not shipped in Lucid due to lack of time to maintain it at the moment.

if anything the dependency was optional. the dependency on python-hulahop was only for 1 of about 9 subprojects with "pyjamas". it can also be used (less successfully) with webkit...

please include it for Lucid+1. pyjamas's only hard dependency is python.

@lfaraone: wronggg. if you actually bothered to look at the multi-level dependencies in the pyjamas source package, you would note that there are about eight or nine packages ONLY ONE OF WHICH is dependent on python-hulahop, and that is pyjamas-desktop. pyjamas-desktop IS NOT A CORE DEPENDENCY.

so please will someone get their act together in the ubuntu team and do a proper job, instead of carte-blanche wiping projects off the face of the earth without consulting the upstream developers.

_thank_ you.

l.

p.s. if you _really_ want to help, then change python-xpcom to depend on xulrunner-1.9.1 and allow it to be installed at the same time as xulrunner-1.9.2 - you _can_ do that, can't you?

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:09 +0000, lkcl wrote:

> p.s. if you _really_ want to help, then change python-xpcom to depend on
> xulrunner-1.9.1 and allow it to be installed at the same time as
> xulrunner-1.9.2 - you _can_ do that, can't you?
>

No, we can't do that. We only support xulrunner 1.9.2 in Lucid (and we
only want to support a single version in the future), otherwise we would
have done that already.

And please be more polite. Your attitude is hardly going to make
contributors feel compelled to help resolve this.

> Your attitude is hardly going to make
> contributors feel compelled to help resolve this.

 "rushing ahead" and screwing with ubuntu users, by blatantly removing complex package dependencies that those users are completely incapable of compiling for themselves, isn't exactly "polite", is it? why should _i_ have to be the one that's "polite" to people who significantly inconvenience ubuntu users?

 because of that "rudeness" by the ubuntu developers who made these carte blanche decisions, right now, every single conversation on the pyjamas mailing list where the word "ubuntu" is mentioned, i *immediately* tell them to go install ANYTHING but ubuntu, and come back when they have done so.

 _forget_ about me and my "rudeness", ok??

 anyway.

> No, we can't do that. We only support xulrunner 1.9.2 in Lucid (and we
> only want to support a single version in the future), otherwise we would
> have done that already.

 ok, so simple stark translation of this statement: you're going to rush ahead, firefox is the absolute priority, and fuck anyone or anything else using xulrunner and python-xpcom, right?

 wait - that's "impolite", is it?

 well, you should have said "our current plan is to only have one version of xulrunner. if you can think of a way to make it easy for us to add two, please do say so"

 or - _anything_ but "no we can't do that".

 that just slams the door in peoples' faces, and that's "rude", isn't it?

 so... tell me.... why should _i_ have to be the one that's "polite" when you're slamming the door in peoples' faces with statements that look eeevver so cleverly "polite" at face value, neh?

 i've seen _enough_ of this in free software - people being sooo cleverr with words, yet actually being total self-serving and goalpost-moving.

 ... you didn't mean to do that, though, chris, did you? it's an innocent enough statement "no we can't do that", but please _think_ about what it means when you say it, ok??

 l.

So, would it be acceptable if pyjamas was shipped in Lucid but without pyjamas-desktop? This seems like the easiest solution to implement. For Maverick, we can either continue to do that, have it use WebKit, or get python-xpcom supported, but the latter two are outside my realm of expertise.

We planned to package python-xpcom at some point in Maverick, but everyone has been busy with more important work so far this cycle (ie, updating Firefox to 3.6.x in every release, which has taken up a lot of time from the people who would probably be otherwise working on this). It will get done at some point, but it's not high on my list of priorities at the moment

On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 17:25 +0000, lkcl wrote:

> "rushing ahead" and screwing with ubuntu users, by blatantly removing
> complex package dependencies that those users are completely incapable
> of compiling for themselves, isn't exactly "polite", is it? why should
> _i_ have to be the one that's "polite" to people who significantly
> inconvenience ubuntu users?
>
> because of that "rudeness" by the ubuntu developers who made these
> carte blanche decisions, right now, every single conversation on the
> pyjamas mailing list where the word "ubuntu" is mentioned, i
> *immediately* tell them to go install ANYTHING but ubuntu, and come back
> when they have done so.

In general, we don't take decisions to remove packages lightly. However,
pyjamas had only been introduced in to Lucid (and so it had never yet
been in a "released" Ubuntu version). If this had been different (ie, if
we had shipped in Karmic), then we would have considered it a regression
to remove it, and tried to reallocate resource accordingly.

I'm sorry that we've ended up in this situation now.

pyjamas has been reintroduced in Maverick without the pyjamas-desktop
package. We'll try and get python-xpcom packaged at some point too.
However, if you want to help out with this (or know anybody who does),
then please feel free to join us on #ubuntu-mozillateam to discuss it.

Chris

Hi,

I've opened bug #604343 to be notified when python-xpcom will be reintroduced.

Thanks,

Fabrice