540470 - Port |Bug 514131 - Kill xpcom/obsolete| to comm-central

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

Comment 1

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

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

[Robert Kaiser]

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.

Comment 3

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

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.

Comment 4

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Attachment: (Av1) Just remove it, Still support m-1.9.2 [Checkin: Comment 13]

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

Comment 5

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

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

[Robert Kaiser]

(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...

Comment 7

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

(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

Comment 8

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

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?

Comment 9

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(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 10

[Philippe M. Chiasson (:gozer)]

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

Like Standard8 said.

Comment 11

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

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

What did he say was wrong with this patch?

Comment 12

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

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.

Comment 13

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

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

Comment 14

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(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.

Comment 15

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Attachment: (Bv1-SM) removed-files.in part (as I guessed it...), A few reorderings and documentation.

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 :-/

Comment 16

[Robert Kaiser]

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?