Bug#484121: tasksel: let's sync on the GNOME task

[Joey Hess]

Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > # May not get installed unless forced, if some other browser satisfies the
> > # dependency, so force it.
> >   epiphany-browser
> > 
> > This comment, and bug #370098 still seem to apply. g-d-e depends on:
> > epiphany-browser (>= 2.22.2) | gnome-www-browser,
> > iceweasel-gnome-support provides gnome-www-browser, so aptitude since
> > aptitude is installing iceweasel anyway during the tasksel run, it might
> > choose to skip epiphany. So I've re-added this to the task.
> 
> If you use gnome, it will always be pulled by epiphany-extensions
> anyway.

It seemed to me that epiphany-extensions depends on epiphany-gecko, but
that epiphany-browser was not pulled in by that.

> > But I did notice that you have included swfdec-mozilla.
> > Tasksel has a separate bug open about flash, #467324. I've been leaning
> > toward swfdec, but still feel that any decision between it and gnash is
> > fairly arbitrary, and am still not sure that shipping flash that is
> > known to still fail on my websites will be a net win for users. Also, if
> > swfdec-mozilla is included, it should be put right in the main desktop
> > task, so it will be available in iceweasel on kde and xfce too.
> 
> Upstream made the choice for us. Now that swfdec-gnome is part of the
> official GNOME release (see gnome-desktop-environment), swfdec-mozilla
> is only here to bring the browser on par with the desktop’s abilities.

There's a big difference between choosing to use swfdec to display flash
files from Desktop, and using it to display flash files from the whole
web. Has the GNOME project really decided to use swfdec in browsers by
default? All I was aware of was them having decided to use swfdec-gnome
so far.

> > Current version of the task (from git) attached.
> 
> Ah, I see the latest version is now in git. Maybe you could remove the
> old svn.debian.org to not confuse users of this old and boring
> technology?

I had meant to zap trunk, thanks for the reminder.

> > BTW, could you take a look at #400543?
> 
> Ah, indeed. I will add it to the gnome package, as it is necessary for
> spell checking in evolution. Please don’t add it to the task, though, as
> the next version will use libenchant instead.

Reassigned to you then.

-- 
see shy jo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20080623/5580dcd1/attachment.pgp