Port |Bug 514131 - Kill xpcom/obsolete| to comm-central

RESOLVED FIXED in Thunderbird 3.1b2

Status

defect
--
trivial
RESOLVED FIXED
10 years ago
9 years ago

People

(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: sgautherie)

Tracking

Trunk
Thunderbird 3.1b2
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(2 attachments)

Assignee

Description

10 years ago
No description provided.
Flags: in-testsuite-
Assignee

Updated

10 years ago
Blocks: C192ConfSync
re: "[needs c-1.9.2 branching]"

It actually does not look like this is the case. It seems that Calendar/ Suite/ And Mail/ all force us to NOT use obsolete libs [by default].

I am ok with letting this creep into 1.9.2's scope.  KaiRo can you confirm?

Comment 2

10 years ago
I know too little about xpcom/obsolete in the first place that I can make a statement on this.

WRT letting this "creep into 1.9.2's scope", I'll defer to Mark, as he should know more about this topic and it's clear he and Thunderbird do care about 1.9.2, which this is still up in the air for us.
It depends on what you're getting rid of. Basically no comm-central app builds with xpcom/obsolete, and they must maintain that for 1.9.2 and trunk.

I think if you wanted to do some of this now, you could get rid of the MOZ_NO_XPCOM_OBSOLETE stuff in configure.in, but not confvars.sh for example (because that would still be needed for the m-c build system).

Dunno about porting the rest of the patch as I haven't looked at it in detail, but as long as the build was essentially unaffected, I don't see that we need to support building with xpcom/obsolete on 1.9.2.
Assignee

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: C192Branch
Assignee

Comment 4

10 years ago
Aside from this port patch, I noticed that our (3) removed-files.in files may need to be checked/updated too...
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/search?string=xpcom_compat&case=on&find=%2Finstaller%2Fremoved-files%5C.in%24
Assignee: nobody → sgautherie.bz
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #427508 - Flags: superreview?(bugzilla)
Attachment #427508 - Flags: review?(bugzilla)
Assignee

Updated

10 years ago
Depends on: NoC192SM
No longer depends on: C192Branch
Whiteboard: [needs c-1.9.2 branching]
Target Milestone: Thunderbird 3.2a1 → Thunderbird 3.1b1
Comment on attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2
[Checkin: Comment 13]

>-# Some random modules require this
>-ifndef MOZ_NO_XPCOM_OBSOLETE
>-STATIC_EXTRA_LIBS	+= $(MOZ_XPCOM_OBSOLETE_LIBS)
>-endif
>-

Huh, you'll want to just drop the ifndef not the whole block.

Comment 6

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)
> Huh, you'll want to just drop the ifndef not the whole block.

No, he wants to drop it. This is ifdef NOT NO xpcom/obsolete, a real double-negative...
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Huh, you'll want to just drop the ifndef not the whole block.
> 
> No, he wants to drop it. This is ifdef NOT NO xpcom/obsolete, a real
> double-negative...

O I really DO hate double negatives
Assignee

Comment 8

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2
[Checkin: Comment 13]


gozer, I wonder if you could do reviews like this one instead of Standard8?
Attachment #427508 - Flags: superreview?(bugzilla) → review?(gozer)
(In reply to comment #8)
> (From update of attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review])
> 
> gozer, I wonder if you could do reviews like this one instead of Standard8?

Generally I would like gozer not to get tied up with lots of build config reviews as there are lots of other build activities we need him to do that others can't... That said, I hope to get to this sometime this week.
Comment on attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2
[Checkin: Comment 13]

Like Standard8 said.
Attachment #427508 - Flags: review?(gozer) → review-
Assignee

Comment 11

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #10)
> Like Standard8 said.

What did he say was wrong with this patch?
Comment on attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2
[Checkin: Comment 13]

Looks like some of this has bitrotted, but otherwise looks fine to me. r=Standard8.
Attachment #427508 - Flags: review?(bugzilla)
Attachment #427508 - Flags: review-
Attachment #427508 - Flags: review+
Assignee

Comment 13

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2
[Checkin: Comment 13]


http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/fdaf69ec4b97
Attachment #427508 - Attachment description: (Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2 → (Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2 [Checkin: Comment 13]
Assignee

Updated

9 years ago
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [T.M. = Thunderbird 3.1b2]
Target Milestone: Thunderbird 3.1b1 → Thunderbird 3.1rc1
Assignee

Comment 14

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #12)
> (From update of attachment 427508 [details] [diff] [review])
> Looks like some of this has bitrotted, but otherwise looks fine to me.

Ftr, just the context.
Assignee

Comment 15

9 years ago
SeaMonkey had nothing, Firefox has something, Thunderbird has something different, reading old 'seamonkey' repository code hints to yet something else:
so I'm partly shooting in the dark as this is way too old to sort out :-/
Attachment #431102 - Flags: review?(kairo)
Assignee

Updated

9 years ago
Whiteboard: [T.M. = Thunderbird 3.1b2]
Target Milestone: Thunderbird 3.1rc1 → Thunderbird 3.1b2

Comment 16

9 years ago
Comment on attachment 431102 [details] [diff] [review]
(Bv1-SM) removed-files.in part (as I guessed it...), A few reorderings and documentation.

Actually, I don't really see the need to remove files that haven't been on packaging manifests. Can you give any reason for that?
Attachment #431102 - Flags: review?(kairo) → review-
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.