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

[Max Rydahl Andersen]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:38:11 +0200, Rob Stryker <rob.stryker at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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 ;)

1.9 is definitly relevant for Ganymede based work. But I head there are issues with that IP wise
which we need to get uncovered somehow.

/max

>
> 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
>>>
>>
>
>