xulrunner feature (was Fedora 9 Feature Status)
 

>>>>> "TM" == Till Maas writes:

[...]

>> Nope. It hasn't been updated since August 2007 doesn't follow the
>> current feature template.

TM> The last update was 2007-11-12 according to
TM> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureEncryptedFilesystems?action=info

TM> Only the date written on the page itself was not updated. Afaik
TM> this feature is already available in rawhide btw.

It's similar with xulrunner (updated 2007-12-31):

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner

It appears to have been removed as a Fedora 9 feature, but the feature
is already in rawhide. One missing item that doesn't conform to the
template is that there doesn't appear to be a contingency plan, but it
would be very difficult to back out the feature now as many packages
have been rebuilt against xulrunner already and the old firefox-devel
package has been removed.

This feature should probably be reinstated.

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

xulrunner feature (was Fedora 9 Feature Status)
 

Alex Lancaster said the following on 01/04/2008 12:52 AM Pacific Time:

"TM" == Till Maas writes:


[...]


Nope. It hasn't been updated since August 2007 doesn't follow the
current feature template.


TM> The last update was 2007-11-12 according to
TM> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureEncryptedFilesystems?action=info

TM> Only the date written on the page itself was not updated. Afaik
TM> this feature is already available in rawhide btw.

It's similar with xulrunner (updated 2007-12-31):


Different issues.


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner

It appears to have been removed as a Fedora 9 feature, but the feature


This is not true. It was never part of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList



is already in rawhide. One missing item that doesn't conform to the
template is that there doesn't appear to be a contingency plan, but it


You are correct. FESCo often asks what the contingency plan is when
reviewing features for acceptance. This particular feature was in
CategoryProposedFedora9--meaning that it was being put forth for a FESCo
vote. I sent mail to the feature owner directly and posted status here
a couple weeks ago. Receiving no respose I moved it to
CategoryProposedFeature.



would be very difficult to back out the feature now as many packages
have been rebuilt against xulrunner already and the old firefox-devel
package has been removed.



Nobody is calling for this :)

John

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list