support Solaris Packaging in NSS 3.3.3



16 years ago
16 years ago


(Reporter: kirk.erickson, Assigned: mhein)



Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)



(2 attachments)



16 years ago
We need support for Solaris Packaging in NSS 3.3.3.
The differences between NSS_3_3_2_RTM and
NSS_3_3_2_RTM need to checked into

Related bug:

Comment 1

16 years ago
This is fine.  We should review the changes one last
time before landing them on the NSS_3_3_BRANCH.

Kirk, could you generate a patch?  Make sure you use
the -uN option for cvs diff.  This generates a unified
diff with the new files included.
Assignee: wtc → kirk.erickson
Priority: -- → P1
Target Milestone: --- → 3.3.3

Comment 2

16 years ago (Ty Lee) is generating the patch.
Sonja or I will attach it for review.  I attempted to
add Ty to the cc'list, but apparently he has no account.

Comment 3

16 years ago
Created attachment 108990 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch for NSS_3_3_BRANCH

Before apply, create new subdirs:
mkdir -p mozilla/security/nss/pkg/solaris/common_files/
mkdir -p mozilla/security/nss/pkg/solaris/SUNWtlsx
mkdir -p mozilla/security/nss/pkg/solaris/SUNWtls
patch <XXX.patch

I tested applying the patch on a different machine and
successfully built with all combinations of:


Ready for review by Wan-Teh.

Comment 4

16 years ago
We also need to generate a prototype file with the solarispackage, this has been
missed in the original implementation of the package for NSS 3.3.2 the prototype
is not crucial to the package itself, but it seems to be absolutely necessary to
generate a patch to the package. The combination of prototype_com and
prototype_sparc (or prototype_com and prototype_i386) is not accepted by buildpatch.
sorry about noticing this so late.

Comment 5

16 years ago
Comment on attachment 108990 [details] [diff] [review]
proposed patch for NSS_3_3_BRANCH


You can go ahead and check this patch in on the
NSS_3_3_BRANCH.  I am qualified to review the
new files in mozilla/security/nss/pkg.	After you
check in this patch I can verify that the new
files are the same as the versions on the
NSS_3_3_2_SUN_PKG_BRANCH with the exception of the
version number.
Attachment #108990 - Flags: review+

Comment 6

16 years ago
Sorry, that should read "I am NOT qualified to
review the new files in mozilla/security/nss/pkg".

Comment 7

16 years ago
--- pasting in Ty's email below. I'll check it in with the suggestions that Ty
has made. This will be a partial fix for this bug, because Ty is still working
on getting the prototype into the format that solaris buildpatch requires.
I have reviewed the NSS patch. It looked fine to me except the following
modifications must be made:

   1. In mozilla/security/nss/pkg/solaris/

              PRODUCT_VERSION = 3.3.2
              PRODUCT_NAME = NSS_3_3_2_RTM
              --- changed to --->
              PRODUCT_VERSION = 3.3.3
              PRODUCT_NAME = NSS_3_3_3

   2. Files under PKG has the CVS $Id expanded with information in
NSS_3_3_2_SUN_PKG_BRANCH. Please have them removed.
            Here is an example:               diff -b -r
                    #ident        "$Id: prototype_sparc,v 2002/09/06
00:45:29 Exp $"
                    --- changed to --->
                    #ident        "$Id: $"



Comment 8

16 years ago
Sonja - can we mark this fixed?

Comment 9

16 years ago
no, don't close it yet, there is another mistake in the packages, in that we do
not depend on specific versions. 

Comment 10

16 years ago
Created attachment 114356 [details]
Earlier mail from Danek regarding Sun's dependency policy

Michael raised the question of introducing package dependencies
back in October.  I've attached Danek's response to the question
for reference.	Basically, the Sun convention is to bank on
linker smarts:

"The way it was explained to me was that this kind of dependency information
has, empirically here at sun, been shown to be better implemented as a
run-time dependency -- i.e., through proper use of linker hints and
dynamic, programmatic checks of the required interfaces (and stepping down
functionality as necessary).  We've found that this is far more robust
against all the weird things that customers end up doing to your packages."

Comment 11

16 years ago
Not sure if this is done or not.
Sonja wanted to deal with package dependencies.
Reassigned to her.
Assignee: kirk.erickson → sonja.mirtitsch

Comment 12

16 years ago
Reassigning to Michael for evaluation.
Assignee: sonja.mirtitsch → mhein

Comment 13

16 years ago
Marked the bug fixed because the work to support Solaris packaging
is done.

Please open a new RFE if we still need to add package dependencies
(see comment 8 and later).
Severity: normal → enhancement
Last Resolved: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.