Re: [jbosstools-dev] Xulrunner downgraded for x64 in repository.jboss.org

Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile 1.8.1.3 and who released it.

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > So we should actually just have moved to 1.8.1.4 when we realized that ? > > /max > > >> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> >>> This should be up to the VPE team to decide. >>> >>> I would prefer one version used across the board. >>> >>> Why was 1.8.1.4 used instead of 1.8.1.3 ? >>> >>> >> Because we weren't able to compile 1.8.1.3 version on x86 platform. >> >> /sergey >> >>> /max >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> I've up-loaded a down-graded version of xulrunner over at >>>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/ >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list >>> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>> >>> >> > > > >