462185 - Don't include JavaScript stand-alone shell in distributions on Mac

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)

Description

[Jim Blandy :jimb]

The fix for bug 433083 builds the JavaScript stand-alone shell by default, and places it in dist/bin.  This executable shouldn't be included in OSX distributions.

Comment 1

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Thunderbird and SeaMonkey [checked in]

Tested with Tb/Mac and SM/Mac and Tb/Linux, and didn't seem to eat anything with Tb/Win. I was going to include Sunbird, but they seem to be a little warm right now.

Comment 2

[Stefan Sitter [:ssitter]]

> I was going to include Sunbird, but they seem to be a little warm right now

That failure is regressed by Bug 433083 too and handled with Bug 462393.

Comment 3

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Comment on attachment 345671 [details] [diff] [review]
Thunderbird and SeaMonkey [checked in]

Yep, that should work

Comment 4

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Comment on attachment 345671 [details] [diff] [review]
Thunderbird and SeaMonkey [checked in]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/3dd34f4ecbbe

Comment 5

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Firefox [checked in]

Comment 6

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Comment on attachment 346126 [details] [diff] [review]
Firefox [checked in]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e2b0f076cba7

Comment 7

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

ted, bsmedberg: now that I'm halfway through doing this piecemeal, the same way that five out of six separate NO_PKG_FILES de-package xpcshell (and why does mac xulrunner depackage it, but not non-mac?), should I have done it just once in packager.mk's list instead, rather than continuing on to add it to xulrunner and mac xulrunner and calendar too?

Comment 8

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Move removal to packager.mk [checked in]

Whoa, embarrassing newbie mistake there, asking a question using anything other than r? as a way to ask. The question was "should I have done it just once
in packager.mk's list instead, rather than continuing on to add it to xulrunner
and mac xulrunner and calendar too?"

Comment 9

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

(In reply to comment #7)
> (and why doesmac xulrunner depackage it, but not non-mac?)

FWIW, this is probably because Windows/Linux use packages-static, so they don't package it in the first place.

Comment 10

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

They do? Which packages-static and how? I've never really looked at xulrunner packaging, but I'd sort of expect http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=pkg_manifest&find=%2Fmozilla%2Fxulrunner%2F to have a result if xulrunner used a pkg_manifest.

Comment 11

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Oh, oops. Dunno.

Comment 12

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Comment on attachment 360432 [details] [diff] [review]
Move removal to packager.mk [checked in]

Drivers: dead simple, no net effect on the product since it just changes where we say not to package jsshell, but since the original way landed before 1.9.1 branched, it'll simplify things all around (okay, especially for comm-central, where we're building against both 1.9.1 and trunk without branching ourselves yet) to just have it done one way, no matter which version of toolkit.

Comment 13

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9e3be74281c8 the other day, and http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/1554f3ffe26e now, revert the comm-central change and I think I'll actually be done.

Comment 14

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Revert Thunderbird and SeaMonkey change

Oh, you put the js in, and you take the js out...

No need for us to unpkg it, since now toolkit's doing it for us, trunk and 1.9.1.

Comment 15

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Comment on attachment 361453 [details] [diff] [review]
Revert Thunderbird and SeaMonkey change

r=me by inspection

Comment 16

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/f89cb1d628ae and I'm getting bored with this bug, I think I'll close it.