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

[Max Areshkau]

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 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
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbosstools-dev/attachments/20080520/3534ad13/attachment.html