On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:15:28PM +0200, Petr Salinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I forgot to send some feedback here, sorry. > >The 18_kbsd_nsprpub.dpatch part seems fine, > > Thanks. > > >but I don't get some of the changes of the 88_kbsd.dpatch, > > Which one's ? > > They are mainly > "defined(LINUX)" -> "defined(LINUX) || defined(__GLIBC__)" > > The notable exception is "security/coreconf/Linux.mk". > Please take a look on the result, it also simplifies this file. > > In all cases, it should not change behaviour on Linux platforms.
Sure, but I prefer to apply patches that change only what is necessary to change for their purpose, especially on this file, which is patched by other patches. > >nor why they have to be debian specific. > > In long term, they should not. Then it should have been named 68_kbsd ;) > But, in fact, 18_kbsd_nsprpub + 88_kbsd are also sufficient to build > firefox, but the firefox hangs for me in the first window. > It might be due to really outdated boehm-gc, but I don't know (yet) the > real reason. Does xulrunner hang the same way ? IIRC, boehm-gc is not used. It is more likely to be an xptstubs/invoke problem. Which implementation gets built in xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/ ? If it is *_unsupported.cpp, then the resulting binary is pretty useless. > So, I do not consider the patch finished, but in short term we > (kfreebsd) need libxul-dev due to reverse build-depends (such as gcj-4.1, > classpath, ...) > > Please could you add it in mean time as debian specific ? Not until I'm sure it give actually something that works. You can test the mybrowser example [1] if you need an actual full test. Mike 1. http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/xulrunner/mybrowser-0.2.2.xulapp unzip the given file (it's just a zip file), and run: xulrunner application.ini -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
