FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-18-2008, 06:39 PM
Ville-Pekka Vainio
 
Default Packaging xulrunner extensions: dependencies

Hi,

As we just saw with nspluginwrapper, packaging things dependening on
xulrunner/Firefox is a bit problematic. My Mozvoikko package was recently
approved by Ville Skyttä (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448215)
but he had a good question about the dependencies:

"If I understand correctly, using xulrunner-unstable makes this prone to
breakage on updates - is there some versioned dependency towards some package
that could be used so that it would be easier to notice such cases?"

I think the answer here is no. Or is there? We just saw what happens if you
hardcode a xulrunner version as a dependency, there will be breakage as soon
as xulrunner is updated. I had the Mozvoikko package from that review
installed as well and it worked fine after the update of Firefox and
xulrunner. So I think I should just leave the xulrunner dependency
unversioned and rebuild the mozvoikko package if I notice the extension being
broken after a xulrunner update.

I also noticed something interesting about xulrunner-devel and
xulrunner-devel-unstable. Mozvoikko can't be built just with the stable
headers which apparently are in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/stable/. For
example it needs mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. This file can be found from two
locations, however. The xulrunner-devel package puts it
in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/spellchecker/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h and
the xulrunner-devel-unstable package puts it
in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/unstable/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. Why are
there two copies and is it considered stable or unstable? I'm thinking
it's "classified" as unstable, but why is it in the "stable devel package"
then as well?

Anyway, unless someone gives me a big no about this soon, I'll request CVS and
start putting mozvoikko into Rawhide and F-9. If there's breakage at some
point, I'll deal with it the best I can.


--
Ville-Pekka Vainio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-22-2008, 06:36 PM
Ville-Pekka Vainio
 
Default Packaging xulrunner extensions: dependencies

Hi,

I recently posted an email about Firefox/xulrunner extensions and dependencies
to fedora-devel, but I got no answers, so I'll try this list as well. Here's
what I wrote:

> As we just saw with nspluginwrapper, packaging things dependening on
> xulrunner/Firefox is a bit problematic. My Mozvoikko package was recently
> approved by Ville Skyttä
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448215) but he had a good
> question about the dependencies:
>
> "If I understand correctly, using xulrunner-unstable makes this prone to
> breakage on updates - is there some versioned dependency towards some
> package that could be used so that it would be easier to notice such
> cases?"
>
> I think the answer here is no. Or is there? We just saw what happens if you
> hardcode a xulrunner version as a dependency, there will be breakage as
> soon as xulrunner is updated. I had the Mozvoikko package from that review
> installed as well and it worked fine after the update of Firefox and
> xulrunner. So I think I should just leave the xulrunner dependency
> unversioned and rebuild the mozvoikko package if I notice the extension
> being broken after a xulrunner update.
>
> I also noticed something interesting about xulrunner-devel and
> xulrunner-devel-unstable. Mozvoikko can't be built just with the stable
> headers which apparently are in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/stable/. For
> example it needs mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. This file can be found from two
> locations, however. The xulrunner-devel package puts it
> in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/spellchecker/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h
> and the xulrunner-devel-unstable package puts it
> in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/unstable/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. Why
> are there two copies and is it considered stable or unstable? I'm thinking
> it's "classified" as unstable, but why is it in the "stable devel package"
> then as well?

If anyone has any answers or ideas on packaging the extension, I would really
appreciate the feedback.


--
Ville-Pekka Vainio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org