240473 - Tell config tools where .idl files are installed

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Braden]

It would be nice if there were a means of determining where Mozilla's .idl files
are installed. I'm thinking simply an "idldir" variable in mozilla-xpcom.pc
should be sufficient.

Comment 1

[cls]

mozilla-config has --idlflags although right now the proper value doesn't get
substituted into the file.

Comment 2

[cls]

Attachment: Fix mozilla-config (checked in)

Comment 3

[Braden]

Attachment: Patch for pkg-config metadata

Comment 4

[Braden]

seawood's patch does not appear to have been checked in on the 1.7 branch. I
think it really ought to be (along with mine).

Comment 5

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Comment on attachment 146470 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix mozilla-config (checked in)

a=mkaply for 1.7.6

Comment 6

[Braden]

Removed keyword fixed1.7.6. The remaining patch to fix (on 1.7.6 and otherwise)
this is still awaiting review.

Comment 7

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Is "idldir" a standard of some sort?

Comment 8

[Braden]

Of *some* sort? I suppose... it's the variable name for that directory used by
mozilla-config. So it's consistent with the existing convention.

Comment 9

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

a=mkaply

Comment 10

[timeless]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

mozilla/build/unix/Makefile.in	1.23
mozilla/build/unix/mozilla-xpcom.pc.in	1.3

mozilla/build/unix/Makefile.in	1.21.2.1
mozilla/build/unix/mozilla-xpcom.pc.in	1.1.102.2

Comment 11

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

Comment on attachment 146470 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix mozilla-config (checked in)

This was never checked in to aviary branch. It's an important fix, and has no
risk.

Comment 12

[Braden]

Christian: Is there a reason you didn't flag the pkg-config metadata fix for 
Aviary approval as well?

Comment 13

[Braden]

And what about bug 279427?

Comment 14

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Drivers are looking at 1.0.5 approval requests and this one has a bunch of
unanswered questions:

Do both patches need approval?
what about bug 279427 mentioned by Braden?
Why did timeless mark the second attachment obsolete, was only the first checked in?

Comment 15

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

Sorry for not responding earlier; this bug had somehow fallen off of my radar.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Christian: Is there a reason you didn't flag the pkg-config metadata fix for 
> Aviary approval as well?

The mozilla-config.in patch is a bugfix, while the other patch is a featurelet;
so I only requested a? for the first patch. But since the other patch is on 1.7
branch too, I guess it makes sense to request a? for the pkg-config patch too.
I'll do that in a minute.

(In reply to comment #13)
> And what about bug 279427?

Yeah, that should go on aviary too, for parity with 1.7 branch. I'll request a?
there.

(In reply to comment #14)
> Do both patches need approval?
Yes.

> what about bug 279427 mentioned by Braden?
See above.

> Why did timeless mark the second attachment obsolete, was only the first
checked in?

Don't know why it was marked obsolete; both patches are present on trunk and 1.7
branch.

Comment 16

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

Requesting a1.0.5 for parity with 1.7 branch.

Comment 17

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

not obsolete -- good patch we'd want if we port to aviary or other branch

Comment 18

[cls]

> Why did timeless mark the second attachment obsolete, was only the first
checked in?

Timeless marks checked in patches as obsolete.  See bug 115514#c5 .

Comment 19

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

1.0.5 has already shipped; removing approval request.

Comment 20

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

Comment on attachment 146470 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix mozilla-config (checked in)

Renominating for next round of branch release

Comment 21

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

Renominating for next round of branch release.

Comment 22

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 146470 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix mozilla-config (checked in)

a=dveditz for drivers

Comment 23

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

a=dveditz for drivers

Comment 24

[Braden]

If someone thought this bug needed to be fixed on another branch, why wasn't it reopened?

Comment 25

[Braden]

chpe: is there a reason you didn't also renominate bug 279427, or was that just an oversight?

Comment 26

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Braden, bugs are marked FIXED when they are fixed on trunk. Branch landings are managed with keywords.

Comment 27

[Braden]

I see. Someone who cares about said branch is welcome to pick this up.

Comment 28

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

Needs to land ASAP if this is still needed in the aviary101 branch

Comment 29

[Christian Persch (GNOME) (away; not receiving bug mail)]

(In reply to comment #25)
> chpe: is there a reason you didn't also renominate bug 279427, or was that just
> an oversight?

I forgot to do that, yes.

Comment 30

[timeless]

Comment on attachment 172356 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch for pkg-config metadata

mozilla/build/unix/mozilla-xpcom.pc.in 	1.1.106.1.2.1 	AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH