Comment 13 for bug 567819

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