Bug 3177 - a lot of package require an old version of xulrunner
Summary: a lot of package require an old version of xulrunner
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Mageia
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Security (show other bugs)
Version: 1
Hardware: All Linux
Priority: Normal major
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: D Morgan
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-10-25 11:34 CEST by Nicolas Vigier
Modified: 2012-04-22 22:09 CEST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Source RPM:
CVE:
Status comment:


Attachments

Description Nicolas Vigier 2011-10-25 11:34:17 CEST
A lot of packages in mageia 1 require an old version of xulrunner or libxulrunner, with security issues.

When xulrunner is updated, all packages having a buildrequire on xulrunner should be rebuilt.
Nicolas Vigier 2011-10-25 11:34:41 CEST

Blocks: (none) => 2934

Comment 1 D Morgan 2011-12-25 17:16:36 CET
how to have a list of all the packages   that need a rebuild ?
Comment 2 Nicolas Vigier 2012-01-01 23:31:04 CET
Some package that still depend on an old version of xulrunner, and need to be rebuilt :
libgjs0
perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed
gnome-python-gtkmozembed

This one require libxulrunner (no specific version). It needs to be checked if it can really work with any version of xulrunner :
monodevelop

Some package require xulrunner (no specific version), but maybe need to be rebuilt. I'm not sure if they need to be rebuilt, or still work with the latest xulrunner, so it needs to be checked :
eclipse-swt
libproxy-mozjs
vuze


For eclipse-swt, it looks like it really needs a rebuild, and dependencies corrected to require a specific version of xulrunner :
$ ldd /usr/lib64/eclipse/libswt-xulrunner-gtk-3659.so
...
        libxul.so => /usr/lib64/xulrunner-6.0.2/libxul.so (0x00007f62b2847000)
        libxpcom.so => /usr/lib64/xulrunner-6.0.2/libxpcom.so (0x00007f62b2640000)
...
Comment 3 Nicolas Vigier 2012-01-01 23:35:58 CET
This list is also a list of packages that need to be checked by QA when xulrunner is updated.
Comment 4 David Walser 2012-01-04 00:31:22 CET
This is not the only issue.  A new update was recently issued for firefox/xulrunner to 9.0.1, and MageiaUpdate and urpmi --auto-select don't pull in the updated libxulrunner when they pull in firefox.  doktor5000 told me on IRC that it will pull it in if you have the xulrunner package installed.

CC: (none) => luigiwalser

Comment 5 D Morgan 2012-01-08 01:27:49 CET
firefox doesn't need xulrunner anymore to work so this is not a bug here
Comment 6 David Walser 2012-01-08 01:33:10 CET
Other packages depend on libxulrunner still.
Comment 7 D Morgan 2012-01-08 01:35:48 CET
i understand better, yes this is the goal of my first question where nicolas answered, i plan to work on this and write a wiki page about firefox updates
Comment 8 David Walser 2012-01-08 01:47:39 CET
OK, this makes sense.  xulrunner requires libxulrunner = %{version}-%{release} so that's why it pulls it in.  If the other packages that depend on libxulrunner are rebuilt, the version of it that they require can be upped, which will also pull it in.  Here's a thought: why not just have those packages depend on xulrunner instead of libxulrunner, so it will get pulled in automatically and they won't need to be rebuilt?
Comment 9 Angelo Naselli 2012-01-08 18:34:59 CET
i uploaded last monodevelop version, so it's been built.
That dependency has been ported by other distros spec file, i will check it better asap.

CC: (none) => anaselli

Manuel Hiebel 2012-02-12 14:22:38 CET

Blocks: 2934 => (none)
Depends on: (none) => 4405

Dan Joita 2012-03-07 11:13:51 CET

CC: (none) => djmarian4u
Summary: A lot of package require an old version of xulrunner => a lot of package require an old version of xulrunner

Comment 10 David Walser 2012-04-22 21:34:34 CEST
eclipse, gjs, and gnome-python-extras cannot be built against current xulrunner because of API changes, and short of updating them to newer versions (if available), there's nothing we can do about that.  Mandriva hasn't rebuilt them since Firefox 3.6.26 either.  The best we can do is let users know in our advisories that those packages remain vulnerable.
David Walser 2012-04-22 22:08:35 CEST

Depends on: 4405 => (none)

Comment 11 David Walser 2012-04-22 22:09:10 CEST
Bye bye buggie.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => WONTFIX


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.