The change to libunity-webapps addresses my main concern (symlinks between profiles and dependency on the profile manager).
The chromeless mode feels a little unfinished though. Visually, the tab strip looks pretty weird without the navigation bar, probably because there is a horizontal line separating the tab strip and the content area (see http://ubuntuone.com/79PlBEH8uxo8dpMcXZ3OdQ). It also seems quite strange that a "chromeless" mode still exposes all browser chrome and browser features (with the exception of just the navigation bar) via the menubar. When I think of "chromeless", I think of a shell to view content without any browser chrome or browser-services running, eg, http://ubuntuone.com/1TE3gfs7D3vTzTouPCMzVe
Note that the View -> Tools -> Navigation Toolbar menu item is still displayed, but doesn't work.
What version of Greasemonkey is this based on? There was a recent greasemonkey update to fix a severe memory leak (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778318). Does the version we're planning to ship have this fix?
The change to libunity-webapps addresses my main concern (symlinks between profiles and dependency on the profile manager).
The chromeless mode feels a little unfinished though. Visually, the tab strip looks pretty weird without the navigation bar, probably because there is a horizontal line separating the tab strip and the content area (see http:// ubuntuone. com/79PlBEH8uxo 8dpMcXZ3OdQ). It also seems quite strange that a "chromeless" mode still exposes all browser chrome and browser features (with the exception of just the navigation bar) via the menubar. When I think of "chromeless", I think of a shell to view content without any browser chrome or browser-services running, eg, http:// ubuntuone. com/1TE3gfs7D3v TzTouPCMzVe
Note that the View -> Tools -> Navigation Toolbar menu item is still displayed, but doesn't work.
What version of Greasemonkey is this based on? There was a recent greasemonkey update to fix a severe memory leak (https:/ /bugzilla. mozilla. org/show_ bug.cgi? id=778318). Does the version we're planning to ship have this fix?