Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>]

<removed cc to drivers AT mozilla.org>

I agree completely Sergey, and I think there is hope yet for modularized
distribution. While it is not explicitly stated in the roadmap, I think
this will be a necessary by-product of the GRE (Gecko Runtime
Environment).

-casey


On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I've just finished reading the new Roadmap proposal. I had three concerns
> regarding Mozilla: 1) over-integrated application suite, 2) Gecko not 
> visible
> enough, 3) non-existent advocacy of things other than Gecko as a platform, 
> not
> to mentioning their in-existent "platform-able" packaging. They've all been
> addressed in the consistent way in the Roadmap, I can't be more happy of the
> chosen direction. Thanks a lot for this!
> However, I do have one issue which is important for me as a packager of 
> Mozilla
> in our source-based distribution. Generally, Mozilla developers are 
> reluctant to
> put up for distribution a packaged source code which corresponds to released
> binaries, which makes it rather inconvenient for people like me to provide
> adequate support for it. I'd be happy to see Gecko, XUL, and other extremely
> important "platform" components, not only developed in a more self-contained
> way, but also distributed as such. Instead of one huge Mozilla package, I'd 
> be
> able to provide "mix and match" capability to users and developers 
> utilizing our
> dustribution (proper dependency control is our responsibility here and we
> acomplish it). I'd also be able to justify a development of some client-side
> applications to be based on Gecko etc., for business uses by my company, 
> with
> all of the improvements we'd be able to achieve going back into the tree. 
> All of
> this is possible if I could point at a web site/team/tarball combination 
> and say
> "this is Gecko (XUL, XPCOM, ...), it does this, it's licensed like this,
> distributed like this, source tarball here, built like this, and 
> documentation
> is here".
> In one sentence, my point is that self-contained (modularized, partitioned,
> whatever) development is good, but delivery/distribution in a finished
> self-contained form is much better, provides better recognition and 
> perception
> of component as a separate entity.
> Thanks for your attention! Good luck!
>
>
> --
> Sergey A. Lipnevich,
> Section guru for: collab, http,
> Source Mage GNU/Linux,
> http://www.sourcemage.org/.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>