Funkiness with mozilla & beta 2

[Net Llama!]

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
> ways.

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