90010 - mozilla on the s390 tracking bug

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Build Config, defect)

Description

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

No, I'm not kidding.

Comment 1

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Attachment: patch

Comment 2

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Red Hat project, Red Hat owner.

Comment 3

[Gerhard Tonn]

Attachment: Attached is a complete patch for s390 and s390x tested on Debian.

The patch has been used for several months now in Debian for S/390 without any
problems.

Comment 4

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Attachment: patch

This is from the debian 1.2.1 packages.  It's probably a bit newer.  It differs
only slightly.

Comment 5

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Comment on attachment 112287 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Looking for review and super-review.

Comment 6

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

Comment on attachment 112287 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

rs=shaver on the new xptcall port and the build glue.  Please wait for wtc's
review of the NSPR changes.

Comment 7

[Wan-Teh Chang]

Comment on attachment 112287 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

The new files have the NPL (not MPL).  I believe they
should have the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, right?

Comment 8

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Good eye, wtc.  Let me do some digging.

Comment 9

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Oh, OK, the guy who submitted it to debian is the same person who posted the
original patch.

Gerhard, can we fix these licenses so they are consistent with the rest of Mozilla?

You're the original person who did this patch, right?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=168339

Comment 10

[Gerhard Tonn]

Yes, no problem. Let me know what I should change regarding the license. 

BTW., the Debian patch should be the same as the one I posted here. What is the
difference?

Regards,
Gerhard

Comment 11

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

I don't think there's a huge difference.  It's just a question of the
surrounding code.

Comment 12

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

As for the licensing, if it's OK with you I would like to just change the
licenese of those particular files to use our standard tri-license template with
you as the original contributor of the code.  Does that sound OK?

Comment 13

[Gerhard Tonn]

Yes, change them to the standard tri-license template. That's fine with me. I am
glad to get it accepted upstream finally.

The s390x code need some more testing, since Debian doesn't support s390x yet
and I haven't been able to test it elsewhere. Let me know if there are any
problems.


Thanks,
Gerhard

Comment 14

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Great, I'll whip up a new patch.

My initial testing on the Red Hat boxes that we have (both s390 and s390x) look
pretty promising.

Comment 15

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Attachment: patch

Patch with the right licenses.

Comment 16

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

Comment on attachment 112330 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Dayquil says it looks great!

Comment 17

[Wan-Teh Chang]

Comment on attachment 112330 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

r=wtc.

There is a missing "is" in
"The Original Code mozilla.org code".
Other than that, this patch is good.

Whoever adds the new files should
remember to add the "is" to the
tri-license headers.

Comment 18

[Wan-Teh Chang]

Comment on attachment 112330 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

I just found that there is an extraneous 'endif' in the
patch for mozilla/security/coreconf/Linux.mk.  I've
checked in the nsprpub and (corrected) security patches
on the NSPR and NSS trunk, which will eventually make it
into the branches used by the Mozilla client.

Comment 19

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Yeah, I noticed that last night myself.  I'll upload a new patch in a bit.

Comment 20

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

Attachment: patch

All comments addressed here.

Comment 21

[Wan-Teh Chang]

Comment on attachment 112778 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

All the NSPR and NSS changes in this patch, including
the parisc64 change to mozilla/security/coreconf/Linux.mk,
have been checked into the tip of NSPR and NSS.  These
changes will eventually make it into the branches used
by the Mozilla client.

Comment 22

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

The parisc change was actually an accident, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything.

Is there any chance that you can push the branch bits forward, assuming there's
nothing wrong with them, to the Mozilla static tag?  Or do we know that there's
going to be an update before 1.3b?

Comment 23

[Wan-Teh Chang]

Don't you need to get drivers' approval for this patch
to be checked into Mozilla 1.3b?

Comment 24

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

It's just a ports change so dbaron and I think it's fine to check it in.

Comment 25

[Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)]

These were checked in a while ago and the nspr and nss changes have been
migrated to the mozilla trunk since then.  Marking fixed.