![]() ![]() That's far from "avoid duplicating efforts", it's more like the opposite. There are several man-months of QA work in that Iceweasel package, and so far the only solution that seems acceptable to you is to throw them away. > Wouldn't be better for the free software community to don't duplicate our efforts? I asked if the technical changes in IceCat could be enumerated. You said branding was important because it creates confusion, but now you say it is pointless. It's not about the freedom issue, which has been dealt with. I have serious trouble understanding you. > I don't see the point to provide a patch to make IceWeasel look and smell like IceCat when IceCat can be used as it is. If you provide a patch to rebrand it (as IceCat, as upstream branding, anything, I really don't care), I will apply it. People will think that Iceweasel is free when in reality it is not but only the gNewSense version is, or are you going to rebrand it in another way?Īs I said, I see this as a non-issue. > It is not an useless debate, because it will create a lot of confusion. See the following changelogs and their associated bug entries (hyperlinked via bug numbers): Can you please list these technical improvements? (OT: why they aren't included upstream?). > I don't, especially because I don't know them. As for #1 I have no problem with rebranding to something else, be it IceCat, upstream branding or anything. #2 and #3 are already done in metad by importing the changes from IceCat. > 4) Include CAcert in the root certificates. > 2) Use free addons (so replace any link in the UI to point to the gnuzilla list). I extracted the relevant changes from IceCat and applied them: Why you are going to solve again in IceWeasel the same problems IceCat is trying to solve? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |