544321 - Update c-c TB unified package manifest for OS/2

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Thunderbird :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Walter Meinl]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.9.3a1pre) Gecko/20100204 Minefield/3.7a1pre
Build Identifier: 

We need quite a few bits that the unified package manifest works on OS/2 properly.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: patch

Comment 2

[Walter Meinl]

Comment on attachment 425268 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

canceling review request for this attachment, I've to overhaul also the shared section

Comment 3

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: patch including shared build

Comment 4

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: patch including shared and a missed os2-specific file

Sorry for renewing the patch again, missed to add an os/2 only file.

Comment 5

[Walter Meinl]

Phil, ping?

Comment 6

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Comment on attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review]
patch including shared and a missed os2-specific file

Yup, sorry for the delay.

Comment 7

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: renewed again for packaging prefs.dll on OS/2

After making package-compare work for os/2, I found that OS/2 doesn't package prefs.dll due to a missing endif that is added here otherwise no further changes.

Comment 8

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: renewed again for packaging prefs.dll on OS/2

last patch was wrong. This adds pref.dll directly in the elifdef XP_OS2 section, there is no other way.

Comment 9

[Walter Meinl]

Attachment: patch including the changes from bug534408

Serge, the other patch would interfere with your patch in bug534408 that is pending for review currently. This attachment would take care of your changes in package-manifest.in. It would be probably a good idea to wait with the os/2 changes here until your changes from the other bug are checked in.

Comment 10

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #9)

My patch there deals with mailcmp only, which your patch here doesn't touch, so whichever is processed first should be fine.
I'm not sure which "other" patch you're referring to though...

Comment 11

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> 
> My patch there deals with mailcmp only, which your patch here doesn't touch, so
> whichever is processed first should be fine.
> I'm not sure which "other" patch you're referring to though...

With "other" patch I referred to attachment 425927 [details] [diff] [review], sorry for not being clear. Yes, I see you only deal with mailcmp in package-manifest.in. However, the whole chunk from  620-677  of attachment 425927 [details] [diff] [review] won't apply cleanly on top of the changes to mailcmp. Since some of the ifdef's/ifndef's/elifdef's are changed as well it took me a while to get the right definitions again. Basically, I tested your patch Gv1 in bug534408 there whether it works on OS/2, which it does :) (but then I faced the problem that the packager bits wouldn't apply)

Comment 12

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > 
> > My patch there deals with mailcmp only, which your patch here doesn't touch, so
> > whichever is processed first should be fine.
> > I'm not sure which "other" patch you're referring to though...
> 
Typo alert: it was of course attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review] I was referring to.
> With "other" patch I referred to attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review], sorry for not being clear.
> Yes, I see you only deal with mailcmp in package-manifest.in. However, the
> whole chunk from  620-677  of attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review] won't apply cleanly on top of
> the changes to mailcmp. Since some of the ifdef's/ifndef's/elifdef's are
> changed as well it took me a while to get the right definitions again.

Comment 13

[Walter Meinl]

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > 
> > My patch there deals with mailcmp only, which your patch here doesn't touch, so
> > whichever is processed first should be fine.
> > I'm not sure which "other" patch you're referring to though...
> 
Typo alert: it was of course attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review] I was referring to.
> With "other" patch I referred to attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review], sorry for not being clear.
> Yes, I see you only deal with mailcmp in package-manifest.in. However, the
> whole chunk from  620-677  of attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review] won't apply cleanly on top of
> the changes to mailcmp. Since some of the ifdef's/ifndef's/elifdef's are
> changed as well it took me a while to get the right definitions again.

Comment 14

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=432443) [details]
> renewed again for packaging prefs.dll on OS/2

Checked in: http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1491c4169057