[gentoo-java] Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[gentoo-java] Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1130 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
> USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
> the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
> USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
> 
> Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
> with their original suggestion.
> 
> At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
> ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
> use.local.desc.  Comments?

Well I have no problem with changing it again, but our user base might
get a little tired. At least we should put a lot of information out
about the change before going forward with it. We currently still have
the mozilla use flags in the ebuilds and I would not like to see three
different use flags for browser plugins in the ebuilds. Something like a
USE flag move would be a nice feature for portage (to update
/etc/portage/package.use).

Regards,
Petteri Räty (Betelgeuse)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

[gentoo-java] Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

Thomas Matthijs wrote:
> * Aron Griffis (agriffis@gentoo.org) wrote:
> 
>>Back in July the Java team proposed fixing its ebuilds to respect the 
>>USE=browserplugin instead of USE=mozilla, a worthwhile change.  During 
>>the course of the discussion, it became clear that the existing 
>>USE=nsplugin was more appropriate.
>>
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg02898.html
>>
>>Unfortunately the discussion stagnated and the Java team went ahead 
>>with their original suggestion.
>>
>>At this point I think it would still be worthwhile to repair these 
>>ebuilds to respect USE=nsplugin and drop the browserplugin from 
>>use.local.desc.  Comments?
> 
> 
> We had discussed it prior and then nobody seemed to object to
> browserplugin, only after we changed it.
> 
> You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
> Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
> 

I discussed a possible solution to the problem with axxo the other day.
Basically we should remove all the use flags and make java-config able
to configure the java plugin.

In the meanwhile feel free to rename the USE flags, but you can of
course help the java team by improving =java-config-2.0* and adding
support for plugin configuring.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

[gentoo-java] Re: [gentoo-dev] browserplugin vs. nsplugin

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> Thomas Matthijs wrote:	[Tue Oct 18 2005, 10:46:15AM EDT]
> 
>>You have the java herd's blessing to go ahead and change it.
>>Please announce it to gentoo-java@ aswell when you make the change.
> 
> 
> All set.  The only place browserplugin is mentioned is in the
> ChangeLogs.
> 

Maybe there should also be a mention in gwn next week and the change
would then be committed on for example next tuesday.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]