Last Comment Bug 594430 - Package message wakeup service
: Package message wakeup service
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
:
Product: SeaMonkey
Classification: Client Software
Component: Build Config (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
: -- normal (vote)
: seamonkey2.1b1
Assigned To: Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)
:
:
Mentors:
Depends on: 591052 594487 598916
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-09-08 10:01 PDT by Robert Kaiser
Modified: 2010-09-23 07:04 PDT (History)
3 users (show)
bugzillamozillaorg_serge_20140323: in‑testsuite-
See Also:
Crash Signature:
(edit)
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---


Attachments
(Av1) Just fo it (1.09 KB, patch)
2010-09-08 11:52 PDT, Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)
kairo: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
(Av2) Just do it [Checked in: Comment 10] (1.84 KB, patch)
2010-09-18 22:01 PDT, Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)
bugspam.Callek: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Description Robert Kaiser 2010-09-08 10:01:12 PDT
Message wakeup service is appearing in package-compare as not being packaged, and I thought we could ignore it as long as we don't do e10s, but Serge has found that it appears in Mac leak test assertions now (bug 563643), so we should really do the packaging.
I'm hesitant to mark a bug dependency here or attach it there as this one might just mask the problem we already had there earlier.
Comment 1 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-08 11:52:47 PDT
Created attachment 473145 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just fo it

To fix
{
+bin/components/messageWakeupService.js
+bin/components/messageWakeupService.manifest
}
Comment 2 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-08 11:56:44 PDT
Fwiw, Firefox does not (explicitly) package these files :-/
Comment 3 Bruno 'Aqualon' Escherl 2010-09-08 15:22:31 PDT
Shouldn't we prefer the solution from bug 594487?
Comment 4 Robert Kaiser 2010-09-08 15:51:46 PDT
Firefox is no measure any more because they use omnijar packaging.
Comment 5 Robert Kaiser 2010-09-08 15:52:35 PDT
But Aqualon might be right, actually - for the moment, as once we enable libxul and OOPP, we'll want it packaged.
Comment 6 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-09 03:34:24 PDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Shouldn't we prefer the solution from bug 594487?

"No", we likely (will) need both.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Firefox is no measure any more because they use omnijar packaging.

Well, they (explicitly) package other similar files, but anyway...

(In reply to comment #5)
> once we enable libxul and OOPP, we'll want it packaged.

Yes, I'll check an updated patch in, depending on bug 594487 fix.
Comment 7 Justin Wood (:Callek) 2010-09-10 21:10:46 PDT
Comment on attachment 473145 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av1) Just fo it

I don't want this, and want Bug 593613 instead.

If you feel like doing this change now though, I'll accept it if you wrap it in:
ifdef MOZ_IPC

Thanks
Comment 8 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-11 01:11:14 PDT
(In reply to comment #7)

> I don't want this, and want Bug 593613 instead.

Wrong bug number?

> If you feel like doing this change now though, I'll accept it if you wrap it
> in:
> ifdef MOZ_IPC

That's exactly what I meant in my comment 6...
Comment 9 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-18 22:01:31 PDT
Created attachment 476601 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av2) Just do it
[Checked in: Comment 10]

Av1, with comment 6 suggestion(s).
Comment 10 Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) 2010-09-18 22:08:18 PDT
Comment on attachment 476601 [details] [diff] [review]
(Av2) Just do it
[Checked in: Comment 10]

http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/87914d492ab4

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.