OLPC Policies Question Concerning Upgrading Default Installed Software

[Benjamin M. Schwartz]

On 01/11/2012 05:21 PM, anthony at evolutionindesignz.com wrote:
> it is presumed that replacing XULRunner 
> 1.9.1.9 should not cause problems in browser functionaltiy.

That's an extremely dangerous thing to presume.  I "presume" that you're
actually going to test the browser extensively after performing the
upgrade to ensure that the upgrade doesn't break the browser.

> Are there 
> any other dependencies that we should concern ourselves with(assuming 
> that it is not against OLPC policies to perform the upgrade)?

The other activities that use Xulrunner (e.g. Wikipedia) are all very
similar to Browse, so the upgrade is unlikely to cause problems in one but
not another.

As for dependencies of the browser, you should check that you have not
caused a regression in plugin support, especially as relates to the Totem
and Gnash plugins.

--Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120111/e65c5e48/attachment.sig>