Funkiness with mozilla & beta 2
netllama at linux-sxs.org
Sat Jul 5 21:00:23 CEST 2003
On 07/05/03 11:49, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 13:27, Net Llama! wrote:
>> > With all the fsck'ing GNOME dependencies it's a real pain in the @$$.
>> > Maybe I'll get 1.4 and just run it from my home dir.
>> > I REALLY wish that packages weren't so complicatedly intertwined in
>> > Linux anymore. For example, I really like Evolution but to go through
>> > the agony of trying to upgrade it (and all the things it needs and all
>> > the things that break when you do) isn't worth it.
>> No part of Mozilla is dependent on Gnome. Perhaps Redhat's RPMs are,
>> but that's neither here nor there.
> I know that. I never said that mozilla was in any way dependent on
> GNOME but that parts of GNOME are dependent on specific mozilla builds.
> I'm saying that GNOME and parts of it depend on mozilla. Yes, it's the
> way RH (and other distros as well) have configured things. Yes it's a
> tad annoying. But the benefits of running a mostly stock (with updates)
> redhat release outweigh the annoyances 90% of the time. The guts of it
> are good, as with any distro, but the UI options of GNOME and KDE suck
> particularly because of the intertwining and overlapping of things. The
> one thing I'll miss from xfce3 is that the whole thing was one big
> package. I do like what xfc4 is doing and it really beats the hell out
> of the other options. But that doesn't mean I still miss the simpler
What parts of Gnome depend on Mozilla? Its not in any of the deps info
for the RH mozilla RPMs.
L. Friedman netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
11:55am up 6 days, 20:20, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.07
More information about the Xfce4-dev