Closed Bug 339986 Opened 14 years ago Closed 14 years ago

Make Sunbird able to be built as a Universal binary

Categories

(Calendar :: General, defect)

PowerPC
macOS
defect
Not set

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: mattwillis, Assigned: mattwillis)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

Make Sunbird a Universal binary
Attachment #224093 - Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(jminta)
Attached file mozconfig that works
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)
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.

blocking0.3?

Filter bugspam out using maggieIsMyCat
Flags: blocking0.3?(dmose)
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 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-
Attachment #224093 - Flags: approval-branch-1.8.1?(dmose)
Flags: blocking0.3?(dmose) → blocking0.3+
Attachment #224093 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #224934 - Flags: first-review?(dmose)
Comment on attachment 224934 [details] [diff] [review]
rev1 - addresses dmose's nits

r=dmose
Attachment #224934 - Flags: first-review?(dmose) → first-review+
patch checked in on MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH and trunk.

-> FIXED
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.