EPEL packaging question - mozilla-adblockplus
 

On 4 April 2012 13:09, Russell Golden <niveusluna@niveusluna.org> wrote:
> mozilla-adblockplus won't build in EL6. I suspect the version of
> python-jinja2 is too old.
>
> My question: The upstream XPI for mozilla-adblockplus includes a JAR
> file. This JAR file contains _no_ libraries or binaries. It only has
> images, javascript, and some XUL files. Definitely no Java, despite
> the JAR extension.

With that.. I would flag that in Fedora's package as something legal
needs to look at and I would say that retire the EPEL one.


--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me." Â*—James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

EPEL packaging question - mozilla-adblockplus
 

> With that.. I would flag that in Fedora's package as something legal
> needs to look at and I would say that retire the EPEL one.

Why would Legal need to look at it?
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

EPEL packaging question - mozilla-adblockplus
 

On 4 April 2012 14:18, Russell Golden <niveusluna@niveusluna.org> wrote:
>> With that.. I would flag that in Fedora's package as something legal
>> needs to look at and I would say that retire the EPEL one.
>
> Why would Legal need to look at it?

Brain fart on my part. Legal is the wrong group.. sorry I was thinking
to see if the .jar should need source code to be allowed in the
repository etc.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me." Â*—James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

EPEL packaging question - mozilla-adblockplus
 

> Brain fart on my part. Legal is the wrong group.. sorry I was thinking
> to see if the .jar should need source code to be allowed in the
> repository etc.

Which group, then?
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

EPEL packaging question - mozilla-adblockplus
 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Russell Golden
<niveusluna@niveusluna.org> wrote:
> mozilla-adblockplus won't build in EL6. I suspect the version of
> python-jinja2 is too old.

Yepp, you already posted the failure here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799087

I'd file a bug against it and see if it can be updated. While
searching for the latest update, I hit this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757895

python-jinja2-26 is a really strange package name and installs strange
too, but BR that and mozilla-adblockplus builds fine in mock here.
(But you need to adjust PYTHONPATH a bit:
PYTHONPATH=/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/Jinja2-2.6-py2.6.egg
python build.py build [snip])
The whole package looks strange/odd to me, so not judging about the
strangeness above ;)

Another thing: In the sources file is only the latest source, not all
package versions you ever needed.

> My question: The upstream XPI for mozilla-adblockplus includes a JAR
> file. This JAR file contains _no_ libraries or binaries. It only has
> images, javascript, and some XUL files. Definitely no Java, despite
> the JAR extension.

Do you mean mochitest/tests/performance/data/testpages.jar?

> It appears to me that there are three options.
>
> Option 1: Unpack the upstream XPI and ship that.
> Option 2: Figure out how to make this package build, if it can at all.
> Option 3: Retire the package. AdBlock Plus 1.x will be disabled by
> default in Firefox 10 without disabling addon compat checking, and I'm
> not even sure it will work at all.

I'm in favour of option 2 :)

Hope that helps (didn't do any other checks, if it works etc as I
don't have an epel6 installation).
When jinja2 is needed on runtime, there is more todo than the
PYTHONPATH hack above, but it doesn't look like.

Greetings,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging