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

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 >