<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:op.ubfrkkrow1tq5a@reddevil" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Guys,
What is the status for this 64-bit thing ?
We need to move faster ,)
Did you just randomly choose different compile options that made the distribution 2 meg different ?
What is the known differences between .3 and .4 ?
Should we just live with the small version difference ?
I can't answer these since I don't know the details of xulrunner - you guys do.
-max
</pre>
</blockquote>
In .4 was fixed some bugs so we can live with this difference.<br>
If we will be compile xulrunner 1.8.1.3 , it's better to build with
following arguments( --enable-application=xulrunner<br>
--disable-tests --enable-svg --enable-canvas), because with such
arguments was build xulrunner 1.8.1.3 from atf. <br>
<br>
Also looks like xulrunner 1.8.1* in end of life, so may be we
should migrate to xulrunner 1.9?<br>
For now available only rc1, but guys from mozilla says that more better
than 1.8*.<br>
About new features and difference in xulrunner 1.9 you can read
here(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers">http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers</a>).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:op.ubfrkkrow1tq5a@reddevil" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sergey said something about tests being included.
Not sure
Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ?
/max
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi all:
I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/">http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/</a>
The reason for this is so that we may (if it's not impossible) use a
matching xulrunner release across all jbds and jbosstools releases.
Previously, the x64 release was 1.8.1.4 rather than the standard 1.8.1.3
used in windows, linux, and osx.
Whether this can be worked into the build for 2.1.0 GA, or the update
site, or not, remains to be seen. But I just wanted to make sure this is
a possibility for GA. Personally, *I* hope it makes it in... but with
the xulrunner version being technically lower than the old, anyone
already using the product would have to manually downgrade the file in
the plugins folder. Not exactly a great situation.
Parity? Or ease of use? Which will win?
- Rob Stryker
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org">jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org">jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>