520394 - Build config changes for Cocoa Printing

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Fix

Lurking behind the bug 516858 trunk Mac failure is another: we try to rsync PrintPDE.plugin, but it's no longer built by default, because the default is now to use the bug 456646 Cocoa print dialog. Since that uses the bug 389074 Core Text check to define ac_cv_have_leopard, it's simpler just to port them both.

Comment 1

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Comment on attachment 404442 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix

Not had time to look at this in detail yet, but:

+if test "$MOZILLA_1_9_1_BRANCH" = "1"; then

do we know if the cocoa printing changes going onto 1.9.2? If not, we should include 1.9.2 in the checks.

Comment 2

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

A fun question: I assumed so, since bug 456646 is wanted1.9.2+, but with 1.9.2 headed for the door at top speed, maybe it won't make it. Markus?

Comment 3

[Markus Stange [:mstange]]

We decided to create a 1.9.2 version of the Cocoa printing patch that doesn't use any configure flags, always compiles both the Carbon and the Cocoa dialog and makes the decision which one to use at runtime.

Comment 4

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Mmm, today's plan, in bug 520494, is even simpler: ifdef MOZILLA_1_9_1 we rsync PrintPDE.plugin, otherwise it's gone, no configure options, no nothing. I can live with being broken on top of mozilla-central (behind other breakage) until that lands.

Comment 5

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Fix v.2

Simplicity, it's a good thing.

Comment 6

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Comment on attachment 404555 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix v.2

Thinking about it, I'd also argue whether we actually need the MOZ_COCOA_PRINTING and MOZ_CORETEXT defining for trunk anyway - it would be surprising if we needed a build config ifdef in comm-central that uses them (except I suppose packaging files).

Hmm, no removed-files.in changes? How does the updater service cope with removing the appropriate files/directories?

r+a=Standard8 on the makefile changes as we'll need them anyway.

Comment 7

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Checked in: http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/277ff2a7a4d2

Comment 8

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

We're looking good for Fx landing removed-files.in changes, which will be the first use of "../", and adding a path like that to the updater tests, so once that bakes a day or two I'll remove our files (directories don't get removed: the updater doesn't support that, only the Windows installer does).

Comment 9

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Actually, we're close enough to branching and the files are harmless enough that I'll just wait instead of adding yet another ifdef.

Comment 10

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

This no longer needs a branch ;-)

Comment 11

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: removed-files

Well, I think we'll survive without the test, since Fx has all these months (and I just had to look at the diff to see what this patch I've been carrying in my queue for months actually was).

Comment 12

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/d6fe3c97f178

Comment 13

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #12)
> http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/d6fe3c97f178

Are the '$' actually expected in the SM file? (The lines look like truncated...)

Comment 14

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Oy.

Comment 15

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1745c699f0b5