Closed Bug 545055 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

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

Categories

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect, trivial)

defect
Not set
trivial

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Future

People

(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: Callek)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Firefox has it since m-1.9.1.
Something else the c-c apps will want but have no real use yet, iirc.
Flags: in-testsuite-
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.
Depends on: 390361, 469873
Assignee: nobody → bugspam.Callek
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
c-c currently has no real use for this, but we should port it now anyway.
Attachment #435448 - Flags: review?(kairo)
Attachment #435448 - Flags: review?(kairo) → review+
(In reply to comment #2)
> Just port --with-system-libxul

So this ports bug 460913 and bug 469873.
Bug 390361 is still ToDo.
(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).
(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.
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.
Pushed as: http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/1dfde698a59b
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.