717493 - Port |Bug 717491 - "Warning: package error or possible missing or unnecessary file: bin/components/proxyObject.xpt (package-manifest, 151)."| to SeaMonkey

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=ThunderbirdTrunk/1326326911.1326333403.13717.gz&fulltext=1
Linux comm-central build on 2012/01/11 16:08:31
{
Warning: package error or possible missing or unnecessary file: bin/components/proxyObject.xpt (package-manifest, 459).
}

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1326320185.1326332179.11070.gz&fulltext=1
OS X 10.5 comm-central-trunk leak test build on 2012/01/11 14:16:25
No bug :-|

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1326323109.1326333321.13646.gz&fulltext=1
OS X 10.6 comm-central-trunk nightly on 2012/01/11 15:05:09
{
Warning: package error or possible missing or unnecessary file: SeaMonkey.app/Contents/MacOS/components/proxyObject.xpt (package-manifest, 159).
}

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1326320049.1326330699.7951.gz&fulltext=1
WINNT 5.2 comm-central-trunk build on 2012/01/11 14:14:09
{
Warning: package error or possible missing or unnecessary file: bin/components/proxyObject.xpt (package-manifest, 167).
}

Comment 1

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt.

Comment 2

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Comment on attachment 589390 [details] [diff] [review]
Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt.

While here, lets remove mail's and calendar's packaging of this file as well...

Comment 3

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v2)

Comment 4

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 589411 [details] [diff] [review]
Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v2)

package-manifest.in:
I would assume Callek's r+ can be forwarded.

removed-files.in:
I'm sure SM and TB want to keep it, I assume the same is true for Calendar.
_If_ it is needed to do something there (which I believe is not, at least for SM and TB which use omnijar), it would be to add(!) a new line, or move the existing one.

Comment 5

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) from comment #4)
> for SM and TB which use omnijar), it would be to add(!) a new line, or move

Arf, not omnijar exactly: see bug 718912 comment 3...

Comment 6

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

Comment on attachment 589411 [details] [diff] [review]
Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v2)

Callek, do you agree with checking this in, _without_ the removed-files.in parts?

Comment 7

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

Comment on attachment 589411 [details] [diff] [review]
Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v2)

Review of attachment 589411 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't remove it from removed-files.in

Comment 8

[Justin Wood (:Callek)]

(In reply to Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) from comment #6)
> Comment on attachment 589411 [details] [diff] [review]
> Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v2)
> 
> Callek, do you agree with checking this in, _without_ the removed-files.in
> parts?

Yes, without removed-files.in this patch was good.

Comment 9

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Attachment: Removed bin/components/proxyObject.xpt. (v3)

Comment 10

[Edmund Wong (:ewong)]

Pushed to comm-central:
http://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/eb282639e268

Comment 11

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=SeaMonkey/1327889832.1327891902.22172.gz&fulltext=1
Linux x86-64 comm-central-trunk build on 2012/01/29 18:17:12

V.Fixed

Comment 12

[Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie)]

(In reply to Serge Gautherie (:sgautherie) from comment #4)
> removed-files.in:
> I'm sure SM and TB want to keep it, I assume the same is true for Calendar.
> _If_ it is needed to do something there (which I believe is not, at least
> for SM and TB which use omnijar), it would be to add(!) a new line, or move
> the existing one.

Ftr, this comment stands.
Bug 722247 or bug 722251 might tell otherwise, but I don't expect that to happen.