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

[Rob Stryker]

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 at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>
>