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

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

> 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?

Yes they are for JBossTools - and even if they were just unzipping they would have the same prolbem.

-max

> - 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
>>
>
>