Closed Bug 544321 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

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

Categories

(Thunderbird :: Build Config, defect)

x86
OS/2
defect
Not set

Tracking

(thunderbird3.1 beta2-fixed)

RESOLVED FIXED
Thunderbird 3.1b2
Tracking Status
thunderbird3.1 --- beta2-fixed

People

(Reporter: wuno, Assigned: wuno)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 5 obsolete files)

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
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Assignee: nobody → wuno
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #425268 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Comment on attachment 425268 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

canceling review request for this attachment, I've to overhaul also the shared section
Attachment #425268 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Attached patch patch including shared build (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Attachment #425268 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #425864 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Sorry for renewing the patch again, missed to add an os/2 only file.
Attachment #425864 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #425947 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Attachment #425864 - Flags: review?(philringnalda)
Phil, ping?
Comment on attachment 425947 [details] [diff] [review]
patch including shared and a missed os2-specific file

Yup, sorry for the delay.
Attachment #425947 - Flags: review?(philringnalda) → review+
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.
last patch was wrong. This adds pref.dll directly in the elifdef XP_OS2 section, there is no other way.
Attachment #432410 - Attachment is obsolete: true
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.
(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...
(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)
(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.
(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.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Whiteboard: attachment 432443
(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
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: attachment 432443
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 3.1b2
Attachment #425947 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #432445 - Attachment is obsolete: true
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.