|
[Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems there
were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
regularly published
2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing the
exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages depending on
it whenever xulrunner gets updated
I hope I found a solution to both problems:
1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that you
can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I understand
it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that the Firefox source
pacakge stripped from the web browser specific GUI code. I can indeed
confirm I succeeded in building the xulrunner package with the firefox
sources.
2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
I have commited these things to our svn, and the packages should be
building right now.
I have no doubt there are still bugs in these packages and that they
can still be cleaned up and improved a lot and needs more practical
testing, but I hope it can be a basis for further work.
Patches and SPECs for building packages against xulrunner generally can
be easily found in Fedora's cvs which you can reach by
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/--
Frederik Himpe
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
2008/7/25 Frederik Himpe < fhimpe@...>:
> I hope I found a solution to both problems:
>
> 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that you
> can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I understand
> it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that the Firefox source
> pacakge stripped from the web browser specific GUI code. I can indeed
> confirm I succeeded in building the xulrunner package with the firefox
> sources.
>
> 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
> installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
> xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
> necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
Is there a way to track API/ABI changes ?
--
Close the World, Open the Net
http://www.linux-wizard.net
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Frederik Himpe wrote:
> Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems there
> were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
> 1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
> regularly published
> 2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing the
> exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages depending on
> it whenever xulrunner gets updated
>
> I hope I found a solution to both problems:
>
> 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that you
> can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I understand
> it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that the Firefox source
> pacakge stripped from the web browser specific GUI code. I can indeed
> confirm I succeeded in building the xulrunner package with the firefox
> sources.
>
As I understand it, this makes perfect sense as my reading of the info.
on xulrunner is that is is nothing more than a web engine, which is how
firefox is using it, and for it to be useful it requires a HIF so there
should not be any issues using the Firefox sources.
> 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
> installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
> xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
> necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
>
This might be a stupid question, but why not install xulrunner in a
directory name xulrunner, why is there this unnecessary dependency on
psuedo version numbers in the directory name. This sort of naming
convention went out with the dinosaurs on other platforms.
regards,
Steve
[samorris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Steve Morris
n:Morris;Steve
email;internet:samorris@...
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
[Cooker] UTF-8 HAJIME AKAZAWA MURDER FROM Lucky Boy
そして、美代子は右手にこん棒を握り、しかし、そんなことは、できないと、泣き出
しました、そして石のように丸く小さくなりました。しかし、一は、私にあっち向い
とけ言いました。そして、わたしが、頭だけ後ろに向けて、見ているのを知らずに、
一は、逃げる美代子の嫌がると、グーの手首をさっととり、じいさんの心臓をめがけ
て殴りつけました。しばらくして、美代子は、一の怖い監視のもと、赤沢 ちかこ
と、天使のかぶりものを作って、私にかぶせました。そして、わたしが、にこっとし
たのをみて、何か隠しているようだな、と、一は、どすのきいた声で言いました。
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Then, if xulrunner is actually built from ff, why are we introducing
it? Just intstalling ff into libff3 without the version would be
enough.
2008/7/26, Steve Morris < samorris@...>:
> Frederik Himpe wrote:
>> Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems there
>> were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
>> 1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
>> regularly published
>> 2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing the
>> exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages depending on
>> it whenever xulrunner gets updated
>>
>> I hope I found a solution to both problems:
>>
>> 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that you
>> can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I understand
>> it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that the Firefox source
>> pacakge stripped from the web browser specific GUI code. I can indeed
>> confirm I succeeded in building the xulrunner package with the firefox
>> sources.
>>
> As I understand it, this makes perfect sense as my reading of the info.
> on xulrunner is that is is nothing more than a web engine, which is how
> firefox is using it, and for it to be useful it requires a HIF so there
> should not be any issues using the Firefox sources.
>> 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
>> installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
>> xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
>> necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
>>
> This might be a stupid question, but why not install xulrunner in a
> directory name xulrunner, why is there this unnecessary dependency on
> psuedo version numbers in the directory name. This sort of naming
> convention went out with the dinosaurs on other platforms.
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
>
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Dnia 2008-07-26, o godz. 01:31:31
"Funda Wang" < fundawang@...> napisał(a):
> Then, if xulrunner is actually built from ff, why are we introducing
> it? Just intstalling ff into libff3 without the version would be
> enough.
>
I've introduced xulrunner for lining ff against it, but after when
discusion grows up on ML(there were options to pull xulrunner form
firefox itself), xulrunner becomes a nice sandbox.
BTW: there will be not libff3.
> 2008/7/26, Steve Morris < samorris@...>:
> > Frederik Himpe wrote:
> >> Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems
> >> there were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
> >> 1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
> >> regularly published
> >> 2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing
> >> the exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages
> >> depending on it whenever xulrunner gets updated
> >>
> >> I hope I found a solution to both problems:
> >>
> >> 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that
> >> you can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I
> >> understand it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that
> >> the Firefox source pacakge stripped from the web browser specific
> >> GUI code. I can indeed confirm I succeeded in building the
> >> xulrunner package with the firefox sources.
> >>
> > As I understand it, this makes perfect sense as my reading of the
> > info. on xulrunner is that is is nothing more than a web engine,
> > which is how firefox is using it, and for it to be useful it
> > requires a HIF so there should not be any issues using the Firefox
> > sources.
> >> 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
> >> installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
> >> xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
> >> necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
> >>
> > This might be a stupid question, but why not install xulrunner in a
> > directory name xulrunner, why is there this unnecessary dependency
> > on psuedo version numbers in the directory name. This sort of naming
> > convention went out with the dinosaurs on other platforms.
> >
> > regards,
> > Steve
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor
www.mandriva.com
_
( )
X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ \ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Dnia 2008-07-26, o godz. 11:12:45
Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
> Frederik Himpe wrote:
> > Reading the discussions from last week about xulrunner, it seems
> > there were to major problems for the adoption of xulrunner:
> > 1. New releases of xulrunner integrating security fixes are not
> > regularly published
> > 2. xulrunner just like firefox installs in a directory containing
> > the exact version, causing a necesary rebuild of all packages
> > depending on it whenever xulrunner gets updated
> >
> > I hope I found a solution to both problems:
> >
> > 1. The developers on irc://irc.mozilla.org/xulrunner told me that
> > you can simply use the Firefox source to build xulrunner. As I
> > understand it, the xulrunner source package is nothing more that
> > the Firefox source pacakge stripped from the web browser specific
> > GUI code. I can indeed confirm I succeeded in building the
> > xulrunner package with the firefox sources.
> >
> As I understand it, this makes perfect sense as my reading of the
> info. on xulrunner is that is is nothing more than a web engine,
> which is how firefox is using it, and for it to be useful it requires
> a HIF so there should not be any issues using the Firefox sources.
> > 2. Fedora has changed the installation process of xulrunner, so it
> > installs everything in a directory named xulrunner-1.9. So updating
> > xulrunner to a minor security version should hopefully not cause a
> > necessary rebuild of all packages depending on it.
> >
> This might be a stupid question, but why not install xulrunner in a
> directory name xulrunner, why is there this unnecessary dependency on
> psuedo version numbers in the directory name. This sort of naming
> convention went out with the dinosaurs on other platforms.
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
Firefox-1.5 uses xulrunner-1.8 and newest firefox-3.0.1 runs over
xulrunner-1.9.0.1 so after so may years, version number grows on one.
It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor
www.mandriva.com
_
( )
X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ \ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:
> Firefox-1.5 uses xulrunner-1.8 and newest firefox-3.0.1 runs over
> xulrunner-1.9.0.1 so after so may years, version number grows on one.
>
> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
More accurately, it's *unsafe* not to!
It's conceivable that you may want to run firefox 3 and firefox 4 on the
same system and as such you will want xulrunner-1.9 and xulrunner-1.10
(or whatever) on the same system.
That's why version numbers are needed (in theory, major numbers on
libraries should mean that no subfolder at all is needed but that's just
not how upstream have packaged it AFAIK and major number abuse seems to
be a popular hobby over at MozHQ from what I've read (I've not looked
personally))
Col
--
+--------------------------+
| Colin Guthrie |
+--------------------------+
| cguthrie(at)mandriva.org |
| http://colin.guthr.ie/ |
+--------------------------+
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
>
>
Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation will
xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff is
upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to be left
around because other applications have a dependency on that version?
regards,
Steve
[samorris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Steve Morris
n:Morris;Steve
email;internet:samorris@...
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Dnia 2008-07-27, o godz. 11:57:48
Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
>
> > It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
> >
> >
> Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation will
> xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff is
> upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to be
> left around because other applications have a dependency on that
> version?
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
This won't happen with xulrunner.
--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor
www.mandriva.com
_
( )
X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ \ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Steve Morris wrote:
>
>> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
>>
>>
> Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation will
> xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff is
> upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to be left
> around because other applications have a dependency on that version?
Yes but this is completely and entirely *not* ridiculous!
Note that this is not quite the same as the current firefox as Frederick
has included a Fedora patch that only names the directory with major
numbers not the point releases (if you read this thread you'll see this).
So the only time it will happen is with major releases of FF/xulrunner,
not minor ones.
Col
--
+--------------------------+
| Colin Guthrie |
+--------------------------+
| cguthrie(at)mandriva.org |
| http://colin.guthr.ie/ |
+--------------------------+
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:
> Dnia 2008-07-27, o godz. 11:57:48
> Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
>
>
>>> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation will
>> xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff is
>> upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to be
>> left around because other applications have a dependency on that
>> version?
>>
>> regards,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>
> This won't happen with xulrunner.
>
>
How can you guarantee this is you are installing into version named
directory environments as ff does? I have been in the stupid situation
of have 4 versions of the lib firefox lying around, which I have cleaned
up, and then been told I shouldn't have, because of dependencies by
other packages.
regards,
Steve
[samorris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Steve Morris
n:Morris;Steve
email;internet:samorris@...
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Steve Morris wrote:
> How can you guarantee this is you are installing into version named
> directory environments as ff does? I have been in the stupid situation
> of have 4 versions of the lib firefox lying around, which I have cleaned
> up, and then been told I shouldn't have, because of dependencies by
> other packages.
I've already explained this in the other mail. In theory, you may
actually have a xulrunner-1.9 lying around that is no longer needed, but
this shouldn't be a major concern because:
1) This happens with all libraries. If you've upgraded several
distributions (as I have) then you will usually have a big list of
orphaned packages (in this context I consider a package an orphan if it
is no longer provided by your repositories). These generally do no harm
but unless you remove them they will just sit there taking up space. I
can guarentee you'll have such packages on your system.
2) As previously mentioned it's only using the *major* versions numbers,
not every minor... so it wont be quite as bad as firefox.
3) You seem to suggest the firefox case is bad. It's not. It has to work
that way due to the way upstream do things. Yes it's kinda ugly and a
bit unwieldy but such is life.
4) Urpmi's new auto-orphan feautre (which has a different defintion of
orphan) should take care of automatically removing the firefox lib
packages in the future.
So all things considered, you should be able to sleep safe and sound
tonight ;)
Col
--
+--------------------------+
| Colin Guthrie |
+--------------------------+
| cguthrie(at)mandriva.org |
| http://colin.guthr.ie/ |
+--------------------------+
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Dnia 2008-07-28, o godz. 07:07:26
Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
> Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:
> > Dnia 2008-07-27, o godz. 11:57:48
> > Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
> >
> >
> >>> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation
> >> will xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff
> >> is upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to
> >> be left around because other applications have a dependency on that
> >> version?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This won't happen with xulrunner.
> >
> >
> How can you guarantee this is you are installing into version named
> directory environments as ff does? I have been in the stupid
> situation of have 4 versions of the lib firefox lying around, which I
> have cleaned up, and then been told I shouldn't have, because of
> dependencies by other packages.
>
> regards,
> Steve
>
>
For instance, upstream releases xulrunner-1.9.0.1, and we are about to
install this into %{_libdir}/xulrunner-1.9, even if upstream will
release xulrunner-1.9.1.1.1.1.1.1 everything will still goes to
%{_libdir}/xulrunner-1.9. Got it ?
Since firefox-1.5, xulrunner version was bumped from 1.8 to
1.9(firefox 2?), and for a such time period this is acceptable.
--
Regards,
TPG - MandrivaLinux's contributor
www.mandriva.com
_
( )
X ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ \ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Steve Morris wrote:
>> How can you guarantee this is you are installing into version named
>> directory environments as ff does? I have been in the stupid
>> situation of have 4 versions of the lib firefox lying around, which I
>> have cleaned up, and then been told I shouldn't have, because of
>> dependencies by other packages.
>
> I've already explained this in the other mail. In theory, you may
> actually have a xulrunner-1.9 lying around that is no longer needed,
> but this shouldn't be a major concern because:
>
> 1) This happens with all libraries. If you've upgraded several
> distributions (as I have) then you will usually have a big list of
> orphaned packages (in this context I consider a package an orphan if
> it is no longer provided by your repositories). These generally do no
> harm but unless you remove them they will just sit there taking up
> space. I can guarentee you'll have such packages on your system.
>
> 2) As previously mentioned it's only using the *major* versions
> numbers, not every minor... so it wont be quite as bad as firefox.
>
> 3) You seem to suggest the firefox case is bad. It's not. It has to
> work that way due to the way upstream do things. Yes it's kinda ugly
> and a bit unwieldy but such is life.
>
> 4) Urpmi's new auto-orphan feautre (which has a different defintion of
> orphan) should take care of automatically removing the firefox lib
> packages in the future.
>
> So all things considered, you should be able to sleep safe and sound
> tonight ;)
>
> Col
>
Ok, Thanks Col. I guess all I can do is see what happens.
regards,
Steve
[samorris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Steve Morris
n:Morris;Steve
email;internet:samorris@...
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:
> Dnia 2008-07-28, o godz. 07:07:26
> Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
>
>
>> Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia 2008-07-27, o godz. 11:57:48
>>> Steve Morris < samorris@...> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It is safe to install xulrunner under xulrunner-x.y .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Does doing this mean we will get into the ridiculous situation
>>>> will xulrunner that we are in with libfirefox now, in that when ff
>>>> is upgraded the libfirefox directory from previous versions has to
>>>> be left around because other applications have a dependency on that
>>>> version?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This won't happen with xulrunner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> How can you guarantee this is you are installing into version named
>> directory environments as ff does? I have been in the stupid
>> situation of have 4 versions of the lib firefox lying around, which I
>> have cleaned up, and then been told I shouldn't have, because of
>> dependencies by other packages.
>>
>> regards,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>
> For instance, upstream releases xulrunner-1.9.0.1, and we are about to
> install this into %{_libdir}/xulrunner-1.9, even if upstream will
> release xulrunner-1.9.1.1.1.1.1.1 everything will still goes to
> %{_libdir}/xulrunner-1.9. Got it ?
>
> Since firefox-1.5, xulrunner version was bumped from 1.8 to
> 1.9(firefox 2?), and for a such time period this is acceptable.
>
>
This is exactly the same as a proposal I have made previously regarding
using links to point to the latest version of libraries, and been told
that it will not work with packages that need to previous version. How
is this any different.
regards,
Steve
[samorris.vcf]
begin:vcard
fn:Steve Morris
n:Morris;Steve
email;internet:samorris@...
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Hi everyone,
are we missing a pkgconfig file in xulrunner? gluezilla is looking in
this order:
"xpcom mozilla-xpcom firefox-xpcom xulrunner-xpcom"
Regards, Götz
--
AL I:40: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
Epiphany is now working with xulrunner, if you install
libxulrunner1.9, that is. I guess xulrunner should depend on %libname.
Regards, Götz
--
AL I:40: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
|
|
Re: [Cooker] Towards a usable xulrunner
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 22:28:32 Götz Waschk wrote:
> Epiphany is now working with xulrunner, if you install
> libxulrunner1.9, that is. I guess xulrunner should depend on %libname.
OK, I'll check that.
But IMO it's wrong to make epiphany depend on xulrunner >= 1.9.0.1. The
xulrunner package itself actually is not needed, it's only the lib which is
needed. Furthermore, the day xulrunner 1.10 which breaks API/ABI comes out,
but epiphany still needs xulrunner 1.9, epiphany will break. If it would
depend on libxulrunner1.9, then both libs could co-exist for a while and
nothings breaks.
--
Frederik Himpe
|
signature.asc (204 bytes) 