No, I'm not kidding.
Red Hat project, Red Hat owner.
Assignee: asa → blizzard
Component: Browser-General → Build Config
Keywords: meta, patch, review
QA Contact: doronr → granrose
Created attachment 105060 [details] [diff] [review] 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.
Created attachment 112287 [details] [diff] [review] patch This is from the debian 1.2.1 packages. It's probably a bit newer. It differs only slightly.
Attachment #105060 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 112287 [details] [diff] [review] patch Looking for review and super-review.
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.
Attachment #112287 - Flags: superreview?(shaver) → superreview+
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?
Attachment #112287 - Flags: review?(wtc) → review-
Good eye, wtc. Let me do some digging.
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
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
I don't think there's a huge difference. It's just a question of the surrounding code.
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?
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
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.
Created attachment 112330 [details] [diff] [review] patch Patch with the right licenses.
Comment on attachment 112330 [details] [diff] [review] patch Dayquil says it looks great!
Attachment #112330 - Flags: superreview?(shaver) → superreview+
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.
Attachment #112330 - Flags: review?(wtc) → review+
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.
Yeah, I noticed that last night myself. I'll upload a new patch in a bit.
Created attachment 112778 [details] [diff] [review] patch All comments addressed here.
Attachment #112330 - Attachment is obsolete: true
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.
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?
Don't you need to get drivers' approval for this patch to be checked into Mozilla 1.3b?
It's just a ports change so dbaron and I think it's fine to check it in.
These were checked in a while ago and the nspr and nss changes have been migrated to the mozilla trunk since then. Marking fixed.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.