545055 - Port |Bug 460913 - Installer shouldn't copy xulrunner files into Firefox install directory| to comm-central

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Firefox has it since m-1.9.1.
Something else the c-c apps will want but have no real use yet, iirc.

Comment 1

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/search?string=SKIP_COPY_XULRUNNER&case=on
This var is used in bug 390361 only: we'll want to port it too (at the same time).

http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/search?string=SYSTEM_LIBXUL&case=1&find=%2Fconfig
This will need the autoconf.mk.in part from bug 469873 too.

Comment 2

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Attachment: Just port --with-system-libxul

c-c currently has no real use for this, but we should port it now anyway.

Comment 3

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Just port --with-system-libxul

So this ports bug 460913 and bug 469873.
Bug 390361 is still ToDo.

Comment 4

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Just port --with-system-libxul
> 
> So this ports bug 460913 and bug 469873.

Correct.

> Bug 390361 is still ToDo.

I'd say WONTFIX (until we get libxul even working on trunk for us). There is no need/desire on my end to convolute our Makefile with XULRunner stuff (like that) until at the least libxul is available as an option. While the stuff I ported will be useful when that day comes, certainly.

I mainly even did this to get and keep our stuff in sync (more).

Comment 5

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

(In reply to comment #4)
> > Bug 390361 is still ToDo.
> 
> I'd say WONTFIX (until we get libxul even working on trunk for us). There is no
> need/desire on my end to convolute our Makefile with XULRunner stuff (like
> that) until at the least libxul is available as an option. While the stuff I
> ported will be useful when that day comes, certainly.

Whilst we do actually have some of the code to support xulrunner style builds, I agree that we shouldn't even bother about them until such time as we get libxul running.

Comment 6

[Robert Kaiser]

On bug 390361, I agree that we probably shouldn't do it now, but filing a bug targeted Future, depending on that FF bug, possibly blocking a "SM/TB on XULRunner" tracking bug would probably be a good idea, just to have things tracked if/when we want to pick this up in the future.

Comment 7

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Pushed as: http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1dfde698a59b