Closed
Bug 339986
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Make Sunbird able to be built as a Universal binary
Categories
(Calendar :: General, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: mattwillis, Assigned: mattwillis)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
402 bytes,
text/plain
|
Details | |
6.74 KB,
patch
|
dmosedale
:
first-review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Make Sunbird a Universal binary
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(jminta)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(jminta)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 224093 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - Allows building Sunbird as a universal binary with the attached mozconfig
Adding bsmedberg for the changes to allmakefiles.sh
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: second-review?(benjamin)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(mvl)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(jminta)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(jminta)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(benjamin)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
Here's more clarification as to what's happening here.
The second line in the attached mozconfig is the line that enables building a universal binary. That sourced makefile depends on stuff in toolkit's packager.mk
We currently use xpinstall's packager, so this upgrades that, and includes the installer Makefiles in a sunbird build.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
blocking0.3?
Filter bugspam out using maggieIsMyCat
Flags: blocking0.3?(dmose)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 224093 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - Allows building Sunbird as a universal binary with the attached mozconfig
Moving r? to dmose per him
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: second-review?(benjamin)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(mvl)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(dmose)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(dmose)
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(benjamin)
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 224093 [details] [diff] [review]
rev0 - Allows building Sunbird as a universal binary with the attached mozconfig
Looks good; just some minor stuff:
>+ifdef BUILD_STATIC_LIBS
>+ifeq (WINNT,$(OS_ARCH))
>+MOZ_PKG_MANIFEST_P = $(srcdir)/windows/packages-static
>+# XXX Enable when landing unix installer
>+# else
>+# ifneq (,$(filter-out OS2 Darwin,$(OS_ARCH)))
>+# MOZ_PKG_MANIFEST_P = $(srcdir)/unix/packages-static
>+# endif
> endif
> endif
I notice that the analogous firefox Makefile.in errors out if you try and build the installer without setting "--enable-static --disable-shared". Do we want to do that too?
>+MOZ_NONLOCALIZED_PKG_LIST = \
>+ xpcom \
>+ calendar \
>+ $(NULL)
>+
>+MOZ_LOCALIZED_PKG_LIST = $(AB_CD)
>+
>+MOZ_OPTIONAL_PKG_LIST = \
>+ adt \
Can you add a comment here explaining that adt = "Additional Developer Tools"? Given that we don't actually package any such tools at the moment, I'm not sure we really need this line, but it doesn't really hurt either.
>+++ calendar/installer/removed-files.in 1 Jun 2006 17:49:04 -0000
Can you add a comment at the top of this file explaining exactly how it's used?
>@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>+chrome/US.jar
>+chrome/en-win.jar
>+chrome/chrome.rdf
>+chrome/installed-chrome.txt
>+chrome/app-chrome.manifest
>+defaults/pref/all.js
>+defaults/profile/extensions/{8af2d0a7-e394-4de2-ae55-2dae532a7a9b}/install.rdf
>+defaults/profile/extensions/{8af2d0a7-e394-4de2-ae55-2dae532a7a9b}/
>+defaults/profile/extensions/{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}/install.rdf
>+defaults/profile/extensions/{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}/
>
> [...]
>
>+extensions/{641d8d09-7dda-4850-8228-ac0ab65e2ac9}/install.rdf
>+extensions/{641d8d09-7dda-4850-8228-ac0ab65e2ac9}/
Can you add comments explaining which extensions the above are?
>+components/nsBackgroundUpdateService.js
>+#ifndef XP_MACOSX
>+components/autocomplete.xpt
>+#endif
>+@DLL_PREFIX@zlib@DLL_SUFFIX@
Out of curiousity, why exactly do we want to remove both the above components and all the various extensions at install time? Because they otherwise won't be overwritten with new versions? Whatever the reason, can you add a comment explaining?
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: first-review?(dmose) → first-review-
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #224093 -
Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(dmose)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking0.3?(dmose) → blocking0.3+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #224093 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #224934 -
Flags: first-review?(dmose)
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 224934 [details] [diff] [review]
rev1 - addresses dmose's nits
r=dmose
Attachment #224934 -
Flags: first-review?(dmose) → first-review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
patch checked in on MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH and trunk.
-> FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•