11078 - xpcshell binary missing form linux binary releases.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: XPConnect, defect, P3)

Description

[Josh Gough]

The xpcshell program is missing from Linux binary releases. I've used this under
Windows M* and nightly releases. It usually shows up in dist/bin when building
from source, so I figured it should be in the binary packages as well.

Comment 1

[brendan-obsolete]

mccabe, is this one yours?  If not, duck and it's jband's.

/be

Comment 2

[Mike McCabe]

I think it'd be jband's.  Reassigning.

(Though I'm not sure just who controls what goes into a release binary.)

Comment 3

[leger]

putting on [PP] radar

Comment 4

[John Bandhauer]

I have no idea how this packaging is done. Who does?

Comment 5

[John Bandhauer]

leaf, is this within your power?

Comment 6

[Daniel (Leaf) Nunes]

For the Linux builds, the only thing packaging does, currently, is to tar.gz the
dist/bin directory after the build. I can check for the existence of the
xpcshell binary in the verification build tree's dist/bin, but if it isn't
there, it's something that will need to be exported by whatever module is
building it.

Comment 7

[John Bandhauer]

It is built in mozilla/js/src/xpconnect/shell. Building in that directory is
gated by ENABLE_TESTS. I take it ENABLE_TESTS is not defined for this build(s).
Do you specifically not want ENABLE_TESTS on? Is this the tinderbox build we are
talking about?

xpcshell is more interesting if mozilla/js/src/xpconnect/tests/components is
built too. This is also gated by ENABLE_TESTS.

Comment 8

[Daniel (Leaf) Nunes]

we don't build the tests for the binary distribution. Package size was deemed
more important than having all the test executables in users hands.

If this is an issue, it needs to get escalated. For now, i'm marking wontfix

Comment 9

[Mike McCabe]

Seems like there's another possibility here...

Don't gate it ENABLE_TESTS.

Comment 10

[Daniel (Leaf) Nunes]

If it is a test, it should be gated by that configure option. I'll leave it in
the fine and capable hands of the module owner.

Comment 11

[Mike McCabe]

eXv is using this as a development tool, and has projects that run on the bare
xpcshell.  No, it's not part of the end-user browser, but it's useful in binary
distributions to developers.

I think the situation is analogous to xpcom/sample, which *is* built as part of
the standard build.  I think removing the ENABLE_TESTS gating is the right
solution.

Comment 12

[John Bandhauer]

I don't have much invested in any of the possible solutions, but...

What is the purpose of the mozilla binary? To be a browser? Or to distribute
lots of mozilla stuff? Should mozilla.org distribute the jsshell? The
liveconnect version of the jsshell?

I think it is great that someone is making use of the xpcshell. But is that
sufficient reason to enlarge the binary that all users download?

This is not by decision. This is a mozilla.org decision. If leaf doesn't want it
then let's dump it on brendan :)

Comment 13

[leger]

Clearing Won't Fix resolution due to reopen.

Comment 14

[leger]

Clearing Won't Fix resolution due to reopen.

Comment 15

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

This is not a risk for nsbeta2, it's just some makefile hacking.  i'd like to 
get it done soon, but it shouldn't hold up M16.

/be

Comment 16

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Sigh.

/be

Comment 17

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Attachment: proposed fix, someone please try it and gimme an r=

Comment 18

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

Fix checked in.

/be