Funkiness with mozilla & beta 2

[Chuck Mead]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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
| ways.

/me thinks Joe should run lunar!



- --
csm

I am not a curmudgeon! No... really...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/Bxsqv6Gjsf2pQ0oRAlSjAJ9PHYVK4g+J+Yd+cWxGJ3mYUQHn/wCgrJ8a
uyDBl4drQ/QyEcZbeoPVrlY=
=rQUI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----