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 07-29-2008, 03:54 PM
Will Woods
 
Default XULRunner and you

In last week's QA meeting, Chris Aillon (aka caillon, our fearless
firefox/xulrunner maintainer) stopped by to tell us what happened with
xulrunner dep breakage, and how package maintainers can help reduce /
prevent it in the future. Here's a quick summary:

There are two APIs provided by xulrunner - the stable API (gecko-devel),
and the unstable one (gecko-devel-unstable).

The stable API, as you might guess, is not expected to change. So if a
package uses the stable API, it won't have any problems when the
xulrunner package is updated. The unstable API could change at any time,
so if your app is using the unstable API it must be rebuilt *every time*
xulrunner is updated.

Packages using the stable API should have:
Requires: gecko-libs >= 1.9
BuildRequires: gecko-devel >= 1.9

Packages using the unstable API should have:
%define gecko_ver 1.9.0.1
Requires: gecko-libs = %{gecko_ver}
BuildRequires: gecko-devel-unstable = %{gecko_ver}

Anything with BuildRequire: xulrunner-devel or xulrunner-devel-unstable
should be changed to gecko-devel or gecko-devel-unstable. (The
xulrunner-devel packages provide those things).

Also: if your package uses the -unstable API, please send
caillon@redhat.com a note, and *please* consider adding him to the ACL
(or opening it entirely). He keeps tabs on all packages requiring the
unstable API so they can all be rebuilt for each security update.

caillon is out 'til next week, so it would be really good if you can
help clean this stuff up in his absence.

Thanks!

-w
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:22 PM
Braden McDaniel
 
Default XULRunner and you

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:54 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> In last week's QA meeting, Chris Aillon (aka caillon, our fearless
> firefox/xulrunner maintainer) stopped by to tell us what happened with
> xulrunner dep breakage, and how package maintainers can help reduce /
> prevent it in the future. Here's a quick summary:
>
> There are two APIs provided by xulrunner - the stable API (gecko-devel),
> and the unstable one (gecko-devel-unstable).

Why does xulrunner-devel-unstable provide some of the same headers (at a
different path) that xulrunner-devel does? I'm specifically noticing
SpiderMonkey headers; though there might be others.

--
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden@endoframe.com>
<http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden@jabber.org>


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:26 PM
"Douglas E. Warner"
 
Default XULRunner and you

On Tuesday 29 July 2008 08:54:51 Will Woods wrote:
> Packages using the stable API should have:
> * Requires: gecko-libs >= 1.9
> * BuildRequires: gecko-devel >= 1.9

How would we go about requiring only 1.9* versions? I would like the
spec/package to break if/when xulrunner goes to the next version (obviously
not in this release, but at some point in the future).

For example, I can't do:
Requires: gecko-libs < 2.0

Because I'm not guaranteed that the next version will *be* 2.0 (it might be
1.10, for example).

Perhaps it would be best if xulrunner also added something like:

Provides: gecko-libs-api = 1.9

-Doug
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:29 PM
Ville-Pekka Vainio
 
Default XULRunner and you

Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Why does xulrunner-devel-unstable provide some of the same headers (at a
> different path) that xulrunner-devel does? I'm specifically noticing
> SpiderMonkey headers; though there might be others.

Good question, I asked about the same thing in my mail a while ago:
<https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-July/msg01150.html>.

My package mozvoikko needs e.g. mozISpellCheckingEngine.h, which is
in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/spellchecker/ (xulrunner-devel) and
in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/unstable/ (xulrunner-devel-unstable). Using
directories like "spellchecker" I can get mozvoikko to build without the
unstable devel package, but I wonder if I need the "unstable requirements
style" or will the "stable requirements style" do.


--
Ville-Pekka Vainio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 06:45 PM
"Peter Robinson"
 
Default XULRunner and you

>> Packages using the stable API should have:
>> Requires: gecko-libs >= 1.9
>> BuildRequires: gecko-devel >= 1.9
>
> How would we go about requiring only 1.9* versions? I would like the
> spec/package to break if/when xulrunner goes to the next version (obviously
> not in this release, but at some point in the future).
>
> For example, I can't do:
> Requires: gecko-libs < 2.0
>
> Because I'm not guaranteed that the next version will *be* 2.0 (it might be
> 1.10, for example).

It won't be 2. Firefox 3.1.x will ship with gecko 1.9.1.x where as FF
3.0 uses gecko 1.9.0.x. No idea how you'd specify that in rpm though.

Peter

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 06:48 PM
drago01
 
Default XULRunner and you

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Packages using the stable API should have:
>>> Requires: gecko-libs >= 1.9
>>> BuildRequires: gecko-devel >= 1.9
>>
>> How would we go about requiring only 1.9* versions? I would like the
>> spec/package to break if/when xulrunner goes to the next version (obviously
>> not in this release, but at some point in the future).
>>
>> For example, I can't do:
>> Requires: gecko-libs < 2.0
>>
>> Because I'm not guaranteed that the next version will *be* 2.0 (it might be
>> 1.10, for example).
>
> It won't be 2. Firefox 3.1.x will ship with gecko 1.9.1.x where as FF
> 3.0 uses gecko 1.9.0.x. No idea how you'd specify that in rpm though.

< 1.9.1 ?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 10:04 PM
"Douglas E. Warner"
 
Default XULRunner and you

On Tuesday 29 July 2008 11:48:53 drago01 wrote:
> > It won't be 2. Firefox 3.1.x will ship with gecko 1.9.1.x where as FF
> > 3.0 uses gecko 1.9.0.x. No idea how you'd specify that in rpm though.
>
> < 1.9.1 ?

Like I suggested; perhaps:

Provides: gecko-libs-api = 1.9

So packages could require this specific version without allowing allowing
future versions that would possibly break.

-Doug
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-29-2008, 10:10 PM
Denis Leroy
 
Default XULRunner and you

Douglas E. Warner wrote:

On Tuesday 29 July 2008 11:48:53 drago01 wrote:

It won't be 2. Firefox 3.1.x will ship with gecko 1.9.1.x where as FF
3.0 uses gecko 1.9.0.x. No idea how you'd specify that in rpm though.

< 1.9.1 ?


Like I suggested; perhaps:

Provides: gecko-libs-api = 1.9


Could xulrunner please use libtool-style soname versions like all other
libraries in Fedora ? So we don't need to add the version numbers in the
spec file in the first place... Frankly, this would never pass a
standard fedora package review.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-30-2008, 12:08 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default XULRunner and you

Will Woods wrote:

> In last week's QA meeting, Chris Aillon (aka caillon, our fearless
> firefox/xulrunner maintainer) stopped by to tell us what happened with
> xulrunner dep breakage, and how package maintainers can help reduce /
> prevent it in the future. Here's a quick summary:
>
> There are two APIs provided by xulrunner - the stable API (gecko-devel),
> and the unstable one (gecko-devel-unstable).
>
> The stable API, as you might guess, is not expected to change. So if a
> package uses the stable API, it won't have any problems when the
> xulrunner package is updated. The unstable API could change at any time,
> so if your app is using the unstable API it must be rebuilt *every time*
> xulrunner is updated.
>
> Packages using the stable API should have:
> Requires: gecko-libs >= 1.9
> BuildRequires: gecko-devel >= 1.9
>
> Packages using the unstable API should have:
> %define gecko_ver 1.9.0.1
> Requires: gecko-libs = %{gecko_ver}
> BuildRequires: gecko-devel-unstable = %{gecko_ver}

Maybe consider something like this to help both stable/unstable camps:
Provides: gecko-libs(1.9) = 1.9.0.1

Then "stable" folks could
Requires: gecko-libs(1.9)

and "unstable" folks
Requires: gecko-libs(1.9) = 1.9.0.1

-- Rex


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-10-2008, 08:02 AM
Ville-Pekka Vainio
 
Default XULRunner and you

Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:54 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> > In last week's QA meeting, Chris Aillon (aka caillon, our fearless
> > firefox/xulrunner maintainer) stopped by to tell us what happened with
> > xulrunner dep breakage, and how package maintainers can help reduce /
> > prevent it in the future. Here's a quick summary:
> >
> > There are two APIs provided by xulrunner - the stable API (gecko-devel),
> > and the unstable one (gecko-devel-unstable).
>
> Why does xulrunner-devel-unstable provide some of the same headers (at a
> different path) that xulrunner-devel does? I'm specifically noticing
> SpiderMonkey headers; though there might be others.

It's been almost two weeks and this question hasn't been answered yet, any
comments anyone?


--
Ville-Pekka Vainio

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 PM.

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