[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Diff against original mozilla code

From: Mike Hommey
Subject: Re: Diff against original mozilla code
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:43:39 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 02:43:32PM +0100, Alexander Sack <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 10:55:50AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Since the etch release timeline doesn't really help us here, we're just
> > going to rename for the moment. But for lenny (etch+1), we really want
> > collaboration with the gnuzilla project to provide free IceLizards in
> > Debian.
> > 
> Hi,
> before we start, I would like to raise an important question:
> Can we find common ground on whether its ok to ship "forked"
> mozillas or not? I just can imagine that there are distributors (maybe
> even debian) that would like to ship iceweasel as an exact copy of
> firefox so it would be wise to give them what they need (in order to
> prevent yet another fork).
> As a compromise I would support to look for ways to make your changes
> more or less optional. IMO, it would be ok to ship iceweasel sources
> in a way that enables the gnuzilla specific developments by
> default. However, I would really like to see those changes being done
> in a fashion which allows downstream-distributors to switch them off
> (e.g. by configure switch).
> What do you think?

I was actually thinking about evaluating how possible it was to make the
iceweasel differences an extension to firefox. Which would be much
easier to integrate afterwards in the build system.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]