Re: Problem with 'modutil' tool when installing a PKCS#11 module into the Firefox

On Monday, 4 March 2013 14:41:14 UTC+5:30, m.sa...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to install a PKCS#11 module into Firefox browser via an MSI setup > application. > After doing some search through the internet, I bumped into the 'modutil' > tool which has a wide variety of responsibilities

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 06:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote: > Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data: > > 1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard > I'm looking at) > > If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is > relevant unless I'm missin

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 05:14 PM, Syd Polk wrote: > I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last > time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t > think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has > that problem as well, b

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015, at 07:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote: > > If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant > > unless I'm missing something. > > My understanding is that OS version is all that matters. 64-bit apps

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:34:20PM -0700, Matthew N. wrote: > On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote: > >>If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is > >>relevant unless I'm missing something. > > > >My understanding

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On 2015-08-05 4:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote: If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant unless I'm missing something. My understanding is that OS version is all that matters. 64-bit apps require a 64-bit OS.

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Matthew N. wrote: > If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant > unless I'm missing something. My understanding is that OS version is all that matters. 64-bit apps require a 64-bit OS. (Such an OS requires a 64-bit processor of c

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

Assuming our FHR data is gathering correct data: 1.5% of our OS X users are on x86. (There is no date on the dashboard I'm looking at) If we have data on CPU architecture I don't think the OS version is relevant unless I'm missing something. Matthew N. (:MattN) On 2015-08-05 3:02 PM, Syd P

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

So, in March of 2015, these were our usage stats: 32.20% 10.10 (14.0.x) (Yosemite) 27.98% 10.9 (13.0.x) (Mavericks) 19.22% 10.6 (10.0.x) (Snow Leopard) 11.06% 10.7 (11.0.x) (Lion) 9.53% 10.8 (12.0.x) (Mountain Lion) I have requested a more modern run from Brendan, who gave Clint Talbert and

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

Syd Polk wrote: > I don't think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last > time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don't > think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that > problem as well, but it is a very small percentag

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

I don’t think we can do this until we stop supporting Mac OS X 10.6. Last time we calculated percentage of users, this was still over 15%. I don’t think that very many of them would be running 64-bit, either. 10.7 has that problem as well, but it is a very small percentage of users. Syd Polk sp

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:22:10AM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > > > > Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system > > work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as > > much machine time as othe

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

Gregory Szorc wrote: > These are the blockers that I recall as well. However, I /think/ we've > already decided that #1 is no longer a hard blocker and we can proceed as > soon as #2 is resolved. Dropping universal Mac builds can't come soon enough > given the impact to build system complexity

Re: Remove nsITimer.TYPE_REPEATING_PRECISE?

On 2015-08-04 9:09 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: Would it be reasonable to remove nsITimer.TYPE_REPEATING_PRECISE? I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1190735 for this, and a patch to do ithas r+. I thought I'd men

Re: Use of 'auto'

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Jeff Walden wrote: > On 08/02/2015 07:17 AM, smaug wrote: > > MakeAndAddRef would have the same problem as MakeUnique. Doesn't really > tell what type is returned. > > For the MakeUnique uses I've added (doubtless many more have popped up > since), I've pretty much

Re: Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 08:12, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > > Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work, > being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much > machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each > architecture. I think it'

Re: Intent to implement: File system provider API

Hi All, It seems there is no strong objection to this API, so we would like to start the implementation. If you have any further question, please leave your comment on *Bug 1187223* . Thanks. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking

Can we make a plan to retire Universal Mac builds?

Our Universal Mac builds are a frequent headache for build system work, being a special snowflake in many ways. They also use twice as much machine time as other builds, since they do a separate build for each architecture. I think it's time to make a plan to retire them and ship single-architectur

Request for Ideas: Measuring the duration of a CPOW

Dear all, As you may know, we now have Performance Monitoring, an instrumentation used to detect jank and assign blame to a piece of code, typically an add-on (it also works for webpages and the platform itself, although this is not the primary goal of Performance Monitoring at this stage). Th