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

I don't know much about the xulrunner development right now, but I would say we should consider moving forward to the next version for the trunk stream. But of course this is up to Max ultimately ;)

Max Areshkau wrote: > Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> 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 >> >> > In .4 was fixed some bugs so we can live with this difference. > If we will be compile xulrunner 1.8.1.3 , it's better to build with > following arguments( --enable-application=xulrunner > --disable-tests --enable-svg --enable-canvas), because with such > arguments was build xulrunner 1.8.1.3 from atf. > > Also looks like xulrunner 1.8.1* in end of life, so may be we > should migrate to xulrunner 1.9? > For now available only rc1, but guys from mozilla says that more > better than 1.8*. > About new features and difference in xulrunner 1.9 you can read > here(http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Firefox_3_for_developers). > >>> Sergey said something about tests being included. >>> >>> Not sure >>> >>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> I was looking at these today and noticed there is about 2 meg difference between .3 and .4 - why ? >>>> >>>> /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 >> >