624860 - Compiling xulrunner-2.0b8 on MacOSX x86_64 doesn't produce usable SDK

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Description

[Alex Sirota (iosart)]

the resulting SDK is missing key header files (like nsISupports.h, and any IDL based headers) etc - 
http://www.iosart.com/upload/xulrunner-2.0b8.en-US.mac-x86_64.sdk.tar.bz2

Comment 1

[Alex Sirota (iosart)]

opened this bug by cloning bug 600435, sorry for the spam, cleaning up now.

Comment 2

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Try 
 http://people.mozilla.com/~nthomas/xulrunner-2.0b10pre.en-US.mac-x86_64.sdk.tar.bz2
which I made on the same boxes we make Firefox on. 

If I unpack that and compare to the equivalent for i386 then the differences in the file listings are only
$ diff i386/list x86_64/list 
427a428
> ./xulrunner-sdk/bin/xpidl
437,439d437
< ./xulrunner-sdk/host/bin/host_xpidl
< ./xulrunner-sdk/host/bin/host_xpt_dump
< ./xulrunner-sdk/host/bin/host_xpt_link
1642c1640
< ./xulrunner-sdk/include/Nativei386.h
---
> ./xulrunner-sdk/include/NativeX64.h
4099a4098
> ./xulrunner-sdk/sdk/bin/xpidl

Dunno why xpidl would have moved, perhaps fallout from bug 600435. 

This missing file you mention is present in both:
$ find . -name 'nsISupports.h'
./i386/xulrunner-sdk/include/nsISupports.h
./x86_64/xulrunner-sdk/include/nsISupports.h

Comment 3

[Alex Sirota (iosart)]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Try 
> 
> http://people.mozilla.com/~nthomas/xulrunner-2.0b10pre.en-US.mac-x86_64.sdk.tar.bz2
> which I made on the same boxes we make Firefox on. 

Nick, the SDK you linked to above works, thanks! I wonder how our build process was different, and why mine produced an SDK without those headers.

Comment 4

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Woo. I'd link you to a build log but for bug 600435. Can point you to our mozconfig http://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbot-configs/file/2045c20ced5a/mozilla2/macosx64/mozilla-central/xulrunner/mozconfig, and I'm calling
  make -f client.mk build
  make -f client.mk sdk

RESOLVED WORKSFORME ?

Comment 5

[Simon Kornblith]

Should I make another bug for the missing i386 xpidl issue?

Comment 6

[Todd Whiteman]

@Simon

Yes - please open a new bug for the missing xpidl file.

Comment 7

[Alex Vincent [:WeirdAl]]

(In reply to comment #6)
> @Simon
> 
> Yes - please open a new bug for the missing xpidl file.

Filed as bug 636167.

Comment 8

[Kyle Huey (Exited; not receiving bugmail, old account, do not use)]

Per comment 4.