OLPC Policies Question Concerning Upgrading Default Installed Software

anthony at evolutionindesignz.com anthony at evolutionindesignz.com
Wed Jan 11 18:07:13 EST 2012


Yes, of course. We plan to do testing, and would like to be as 
exhaustive as possible-thus the original email.

A decision to consider an upgrade was only made today after realizing 
the that OLPC project will stop using XULRunner and move into Webkit. 
The purspose of the email I sent was to quickly identify other 
dependencies that we will need to add to our tests.

Thank you for pointing out the use of Totem and Gnash plugins. These 
are the kinds of scenarios we are trying to incorporate into our tests.

On 11.01.2012 17:43, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
> 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



More information about the Devel mailing list