Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-08-09 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hi, Not sure whether you actually wanted a reply. Mike Hommey, le Sun 05 Aug 2007 08:11:59 +0200, a écrit : > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 03:08:56AM +0200, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > It looks like I forgot to answer that mail: > > > > Mike Hommey, le Sun 08 Apr 2007 12:56:09 +

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-08-04 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 03:08:56AM +0200, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like I forgot to answer that mail: > > Mike Hommey, le Sun 08 Apr 2007 12:56:09 +0200, a écrit : > > Now that etch is released, I took a look again at your patch, and don't > > really understa

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-08-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sun 05 Aug 2007 03:08:56 +0200, a écrit : > In any case, having xulrunner built with a big "MAXPATHLEN == PATHMAX == > 1024" is better that no xulrunner at all (it is blocking a big bunch of > gnome & such packages). (however, I must admit I have no idea where these defines sho

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-08-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hi, It looks like I forgot to answer that mail: Mike Hommey, le Sun 08 Apr 2007 12:56:09 +0200, a écrit : > Now that etch is released, I took a look again at your patch, and don't > really understand why your fix is different for different parts of the > code, why is not defining MAXPATHLEN and P

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-04-24 Thread Michael Banck
Hi, the current patch is not enough, we have the same issue on GNU/Hurd as in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388475;msg=32 in 38_kbsd.dpatch, there is this: -#if defined(LINUX) +#if defined(LINUX) || (defined(__GLIBC__) && defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)) Petr, is this really nee

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-04-08 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:41:46PM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey, le Thu 01 Mar 2007 07:37:16 +0100, a écrit : > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:19:25AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mike Hommey, le Sun 25 Feb 2007 20:56:28 +0100, a écr

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-03-10 Thread Samuel Thibault
Mike Hommey, le Thu 01 Mar 2007 07:37:16 +0100, a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:19:25AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Mike Hommey, le Sun 25 Feb 2007 20:56:28 +0100, a écrit : > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:39:51AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-02-28 Thread Mike Hommey
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:19:25AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey, le Sun 25 Feb 2007 20:56:28 +0100, a écrit : > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:39:51AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > + char path[strlen(file) + strlen(DBM_SUFFIX) + 1]; >

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-02-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Mike Hommey, le Sun 25 Feb 2007 20:56:28 +0100, a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:39:51AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > + char path[strlen(file) + strlen(DBM_SUFFIX) + 1]; > > Are these kind of constructs really portable ? Since C99, yes. Samuel

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-02-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:39:51AM +0100, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > + char path[strlen(file) + strlen(DBM_SUFFIX) + 1]; Are these kind of constructs really portable ? Anyways, I prefer to wait after etch is released to apply this patch. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Bug#408745: xulrunner: FTBFS on hurd-i386

2007-01-27 Thread Samuel Thibault
Package: xulrunner Version: 1.8.0.9-1 Severity: important Tags: patch Hi, xulrunner currently FTBFS on hurd-i386. Here are two patches for fixing it: - xulrunner-18_kbsd_nspr.dpatch.diff which fixes debian/patches/18_kbsd_nspr.dpatch for proper Hurd support - xulrunner-37_hurd.patch which most