[Bug 567819] Re: Please remove xulrunner-1.9.1 source, binaries and remaining rdepends from Lucid

[lkcl]

> Your attitude is hardly going to make
> contributors feel compelled to help resolve this.

 "rushing ahead" and screwing with ubuntu users, by blatantly removing
complex package dependencies that those users are completely incapable
of compiling for themselves, isn't exactly "polite", is it?  why should
_i_ have to be the one that's "polite" to people who significantly
inconvenience ubuntu users?

 because of that "rudeness" by the ubuntu developers who made these
carte blanche decisions, right now, every single conversation on the
pyjamas mailing list where the word "ubuntu" is mentioned, i
*immediately* tell them to go install ANYTHING but ubuntu, and come back
when they have done so.

 _forget_ about me and my "rudeness", ok??

 anyway.

> No, we can't do that. We only support xulrunner 1.9.2 in Lucid (and we
> only want to support a single version in the future), otherwise we would
> have done that already.

 ok, so simple stark translation of this statement: you're going to rush
ahead, firefox is the absolute priority, and fuck anyone or anything
else using xulrunner and python-xpcom, right?

 wait - that's "impolite", is it?

 well, you should have said "our current plan is to only have one
version of xulrunner.  if you can think of a way to make it easy for us
to add two, please do say so"

 or - _anything_ but "no we can't do that".

 that just slams the door in peoples' faces, and that's "rude", isn't
it?

 so... tell me.... why should _i_ have to be the one that's "polite"
when you're slamming the door in peoples' faces with statements that
look eeevver so cleverly "polite" at face value, neh?

 i've seen _enough_ of this in free software - people being sooo cleverr
with words, yet actually being total self-serving and goalpost-moving.

 ... you didn't mean to do that, though, chris, did you?  it's an
innocent enough statement "no we can't do that", but please _think_
about what it means when you say it, ok??

 l.

-- 
Please remove xulrunner-1.9.1 source, binaries and remaining rdepends from Lucid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/567819
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Sugar
Team, which is subscribed to sugar-hulahop in ubuntu.

Status in “pyjamas” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released
Status in “sugar-browse-activity-0.86” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released
Status in “sugar-hulahop” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released
Status in “xulrunner-1.9.1” package in Ubuntu: Fix Released

Bug description:
Binary package hint: xulrunner-1.9.1

See:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel/
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-lucid-new-firefox-support-model

sugar-hulahop depends on python-xpcom, which was removed from xulrunner in 1.9.2 and distributed separately. There's a chance that we will package that separately in maverick and reintroduce these packages, but, for the time being it has to go (along with anything that depends on it)