Closed Bug 594697 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Adding MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO to config for MeeGo platform

Categories

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

x86
MeeGo
defect
Not set

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: roger.wang, Unassigned)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files, 2 obsolete files)

Attached patch enabling platform meego (obsolete) — Splinter Review
In the attached patch, MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO is defined so the platform can be built with '--enable-meego'.

And various code guarding with MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO are also guarding with MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO.
Attachment #473440 - Flags: review?
Attachment #473440 - Flags: review? → review?(romaxa)
Why is the code added in Bug 583039 not sufficient?
MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO and MOZ_ENABLE_MEEGOTOUCH are for different purpose:

MOZ_ENABLE_MEEGOTOUCH means using meego touch framework widget library, while MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO is for meego platform integration.
We've already got:
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/configure.in#6879

--with-maemo-version=6, which lets you target meego. If you'd like to change that (or add an additional option) for --with-meego-version, I think that'd fit better.
maemo 6 and meego are different systems. maemo 6 starts before the maemo/moblin merge, and they have different base/library packages, build system, etc.

so we need different options for different target systems at this transition period.
Attached patch patch v2 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
updated patch
Attachment #473440 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #474637 - Flags: review?
Attachment #473440 - Flags: review?(romaxa)
There should be support for different meego versions so --with-meego-version= instead of --enable-meego seems to be a better approach.

Maybe it would than make sense to also define MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=0 or MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=1 in --with-maemo-version=6 case.
Comment on attachment 474637 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v2


>-#if (MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO >= 6)
>+#if (MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO >= 6) || defined (MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO)        


I think such creature as (MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO >= 6) should not exists anymore....
We have maemo5.... but that is the end of maemo name.... and after that we have only meego.

Something need to be redone about it.

>   }
> 
>-#if (MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO == 5)
>+#if (MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO == 5) || defined (MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO)  
>   case NPNVSupportsWindowlessLocal: {

I'm not sure that we are going to support this in any future...



dougt any ideas how to proceed with this change?
Attachment #474637 - Flags: feedback?(doug.turner)
oleg, feel free to clean up the #define such that:

MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO 4 code is removed

MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO 5 is MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
Attachment #474637 - Flags: feedback?(doug.turner) → feedback-
Comment on attachment 474637 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v2

So according to the comments, I'll make another patch, which will make the following change:

MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=5  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=0

and MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=1 means the upcoming Meego handset 1.1 release.

Is that good? I'm hoping I'm not creating troubles on the maemo 6 development.

Thanks.
Attachment #474637 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #474637 - Flags: review?
MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=0

I'd rather not defined anything to zero.


Are there any MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6 places that wouldn't work in 1.0?  If so, is there a C #define for the version?

Maybe you could do something like:

#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO
#ifdef some_meego_specific_version == 1.1
....
(In reply to comment #10)
> MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=0
> 
> I'd rather not defined anything to zero.
> 
> 
> Are there any MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6 places that wouldn't work in 1.0?  

No such places so far.

> If so, is
> there a C #define for the version?
> 
> Maybe you could do something like:
> 
> #ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO
> #ifdef some_meego_specific_version == 1.1
> ....

so I'll upload a new patch doing:

MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=5  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO=6  -->  MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO=1

and keep '--with-maemo-version=6' the same as '--with-meego-version=1' for now in mozconfig
Attached patch platform patchSplinter Review
Attachment #476592 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attached patch fennec patchSplinter Review
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #476592 - Flags: review?(romaxa)
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(romaxa)
Comment on attachment 476593 [details] [diff] [review]
fennec patch

># HG changeset patch
># Parent 5024622c731c3da725bab60b4c9f65ce50c2e4a6
>
>diff --git a/app/mobile.js b/app/mobile.js
>--- a/app/mobile.js
>+++ b/app/mobile.js
>@@ -36,6 +36,14 @@
> 
> #filter substitution
> 
>+#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
>+#define MAEMO_OR_MEEGO
>+#endif
>+
>+#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO
>+#define MAEMO_OR_MEEGO
>+#endif
>+

>@@ -161,6 +161,9 @@
> #ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
>     Services.io.offline = false;
> #endif
>+#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO
>+    Services.io.offline = false;
>+#endif

don't really like this double code... would it be possible to define MAEMO_OR_MEEGO somewhere in common .js file? or somewhere else?
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(romaxa)
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(mark.finkle)
Attachment #476593 - Flags: feedback?(doug.turner)
I really don't like this name change. We use XP_UNIX in the code, and don't change it based on branding or marketing changes.

In my mind, (MAEMO > 5) + QT = MEEGO

Do we do this next year too, when Nokia changes the name of the OS again?
Comment on attachment 476593 [details] [diff] [review]
fennec patch

#if defined MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO || defined MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO


instead of 

+#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MAEMO
+#define MAEMO_OR_MEEGO
+#endif
+
+#ifdef MOZ_PLATFORM_MEEGO
+#define MAEMO_OR_MEEGO
+#endif
Attachment #476593 - Flags: feedback?(doug.turner) → feedback-
what is the reason of addin new platform name? can we just use platform_maemo=7 right now for meego, maemo6 for harmattan?

I guess when nokia will stabilize names and release platforms with the same name, then we can make one more maemo/meego names re-consolidation and change defines.

right now I dont see why this rename urgently needed.

lets do this rename 1-2 years later.
up to you really.
suggesting this as wontfix or resolved-later
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Attachment #476592 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #476592 - Flags: review?(romaxa)
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #476593 - Flags: review?(mark.finkle)
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.