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

[Rob Stryker]

I suppose the question here is... how are our users upgrading?

My *impression* is that they're just unzipping everything into a new 
build. How else would they upgrade manually between a CR1 and a GA aside 
from unzip it all over again?

If they're just unzipping everything again, then we're not forcing them 
to downgrade a small part. They're just unzipping a different one.

Is the update site functional between point releases? Between beta / cr1 
/ ga?

- RS

Marshall Culpepper wrote:
> Rob,
>
> The original 64 bit build we were sent by you was 1.8.1.4. There was 
> _never_ a 1.8.1.3 64 bit build until recently. When I asked at Beta1 
> release time if we should use 1.8.1.3 I was told to use what we 
> already had .. so it looks like we will need to either force users 
> Beta1/CR1 64bit users to downgrade or stick with 1.8.1.4 for 64 bit 
> and wait for ATF to upgrade to 1.8.1.4 for the rest of the binaries as 
> well
>
> On May 13, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Rob Stryker wrote:
>
>> http://repository.jboss.org/xulrunner/org.mozilla.xulrunner.gtk.linux.x86_64_1.8.1.3-20080508.jar 
>>
>>
>> I built the one at the above URL and have mailed it to philippe 
>> Ombredanne <pombredanne at nexb.com>
>>
>>
>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>> Or we should have used the official releases by ATF, who *did* compile
>>>> 1.8.1.3 and who released it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that is what we did. They just never released a 64 bit 
>>> version of it.
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>