Closed Bug 545343 Opened 11 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Port |Bug 526451 - allow to build gconf and gnomevfs/gio support independently| to comm-central

Categories

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

x86
Linux
defect
Not set
trivial

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
Thunderbird 3.3a2

People

(Reporter: sgautherie, Assigned: sgautherie)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 3 obsolete files)

I'm loath to add ifdef everywhere.
Flags: in-testsuite-
Depends on: 494163
Assignee: nobody → sgautherie.bz
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #444883 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Attachment #444883 - Flags: review?(kairo)
Comment on attachment 444883 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars

>From: Serge Gautherie <sgautherie.bz@free.fr>
>             AC_DEFINE(MOZ_ENABLE_GNOMEVFS)
>         ],[
>-            if test "$MOZ_ENABLE_GNOMEVFS" = "force"
>-            then
>-                AC_MSG_ERROR([* * * Could not find gnome-vfs-module-2.0 >= $GNOMEVFS_VERSION])
>-            fi
>             MOZ_ENABLE_GNOMEVFS=
>         ])

Did not do a full review yet; but m-c still has this part, why are we removing it?

Also it does have some slight bitrot (purely with context due to 1.9.2 ifdefs) Can you please explain this part and attach a new patch; I'll be faster with review.
Attachment #444883 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
Attachment #444883 - Flags: review?(kairo)
Av1, with comment 2 suggestion(s).

(In reply to comment #2)
> m-c still has this part, why are we removing it?

Because of bug 513709...
Attachment #444883 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #446529 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > m-c still has this part, why are we removing it?
> 
> Because of bug 513709...

Still not clear here, there is a lot of tangential activity on Bug 513709. Can you please be more explicit and descriptive on the why?

Holding off on full review pending that answer. [sorry for delayed reply as well]
Attachment #446529 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
Whiteboard: [needs c-1.9.2 branch]
Av2, simply (context) unbitrotted.


(In reply to comment #2)
> >-            if test "$MOZ_ENABLE_GNOMEVFS" = "force"
> 
> m-c still has this part, why are we removing it?

I think erroring out in m-c should be enough in this case.
Attachment #446529 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #488861 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
No longer depends on: 494163
Target Milestone: Future → ---
Attachment #488861 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review-
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > >-            if test "$MOZ_ENABLE_GNOMEVFS" = "force"
> > 
> > m-c still has this part, why are we removing it?
> 
> I think erroring out in m-c should be enough in this case.

Short term I want to error on the side of caution with us removing things. I do have a general target in mind about mass-removing lots of this stuff, in favor of m-c. But with the LARGE number of changes between m-c and c-c atm here I don't want to just remove stuff "because we don't think we'll need/want it"

If you heavily disagree you can get Standard8 or KaiRo to review this for you if you want, since they likely know much more about GCONF than I do, but I doubt they will disagree.
Av2a, with comment 2 suggestion(s).
Attachment #488861 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #492142 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek)
Comment on attachment 492142 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av3) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars
[Checked in: Comment 10]

Either I don't get this well. or my mind is just not in sorts right. Either way, I'm retargetting at KaiRo for now.
Attachment #492142 - Flags: review?(bugspam.Callek) → review?(kairo)
Comment on attachment 492142 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av3) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars
[Checked in: Comment 10]

r=me, though I still wonder which of these we are really using.

Just FYI, because it was discussed in this bug, if we are actually using a var, then I'm all for having the check and error condition on our side. Where we are not using it in c-c, we probably should not even define it (and that's what I'm still wondering about a bit here).
Attachment #492142 - Flags: review?(kairo) → review+
Comment on attachment 492142 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av3) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars
[Checked in: Comment 10]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/ce7efebfdbde


(In reply to comment #9)
> I still wonder which of these we are really using.

c-c needs (all) this for packaging (only):
{
http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-1.9.2/search?string=MOZ_ENABLE_GNOME_COMPONENT&case=1&find=%2Finstaller%2Fpackage-manifest%5C.in%24
/mail/installer/package-manifest.in
    * line 677 -- #ifdef MOZ_ENABLE_GNOME_COMPONENT
/suite/installer/package-manifest.in
    * line 382 -- #ifdef MOZ_ENABLE_GNOME_COMPONENT
}
Attachment #492142 - Attachment description: (Av3) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars → (Av3) Port (the useful part of) it, Remove some unused vars [Checked in: Comment 10]
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 3.3a2
Blocks: 613814
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.