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

[Rob Stryker]

I don't know much about the xulrunner development right now, but I would 
say we should consider moving forward to the next version for the trunk 
stream.   But of course this is up to Max ultimately ;)

Max Areshkau wrote:
> 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
>>   
>