On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 2:41:58 AM UTC+8, Bobby Holley wrote:
> Binary components are no longer supported:
> https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/05/04/dropping-support-for-binary-components/
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know if binary components still work in Firefox 45 ESR. I
> > ha
On 2016/04/12 20:27, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano wrote:
So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central? What
the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
My understanding is that
https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ s
Hey all, bug 1255450 has landed which means..
For mach users:
You can now create a machrc (or .machrc) file in the following locations:
* $MACHRC
* ~/.mozbuild
* topsrcdir
In the future, individual commands may implement their own settings, but
for now a single section called 'alias' is implemen
On 12/04/16 17:32, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
for example, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.0.1/
Also note that the releases.mozilla.org host supports https, which
offers an additional verification path.
-r
Yes, indeed it do
I've long thought that Bugzilla should be more like Wikipedia: the
"front page" of the bug is editable and always up-to-date (i.e. not
incorrect or outdated STRs), but the history and meta discussion is
still available on a "back page".
On 4/12/16 2:19 PM, David Lawrence wrote:
I used to thi
I used to think it should be called "Abstract". Sort of a summarization
of the bug itself.
dkl
On 04/12/2016 05:02 PM, Emma Humphries wrote:
> This is probably a field that could stand to be re-labled, as I was
> blithely thinking (and I would guess others are) that it was for features,
> only.
>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Bobby Holley
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Jeff Gilbert
> wrote:
> >> I think the whole attempt is
> >> increasingly a distraction vs the alternative, and I say this as
> >> someone who write
This is probably a field that could stand to be re-labled, as I was
blithely thinking (and I would guess others are) that it was for features,
only.
-- Emma
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2016-04-07 2:50 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > (I'd much rather a bug report be edit
On 2016-04-07 2:50 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> (I'd much rather a bug report be editable text, with history
> available, for answers to these or similar questions -- rather than
> a stream of permanent comments. But we seem stuck with the horrid
> stream-of-comments Bugzilla format, which means I
Binary components are no longer supported:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/05/04/dropping-support-for-binary-components/
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if binary components still work in Firefox 45 ESR. I
> have a Firefox extension that is an XPCOM e
Hi,
I would like to know if binary components still work in Firefox 45 ESR. I have
a Firefox extension that is an XPCOM extension that works in Firefox 38 ESR. I
am trying to upgrade it to work with 45 ESR and have used the Firefox 45 ESR
SDK (from ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.0esr/w
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> for example, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/45.0.1/
Also note that the releases.mozilla.org host supports https, which
offers an additional verification path.
-r
___
dev-platform
This was a mistake on my part. The last release had some problems in
automation due to issues with our infrastructure
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1263082). As a result I had to
run some jobs manually and ran the checksums job in the wrong order so they
were not copied over
My apologies. We will need to move this out a week to accommodate the
new Firefox release on April 26th. We do not want our migration to
interrupt the release process so better to do it after.
More time for quality testing and feedback! :)
Thanks
dkl
Forwarded Message
Subject:
In today's nightly I landed a patch in bug 1252152 which will crash a
plugin-container process more aggressively if a plugin instance is torn
down while its code is on the stack. Please keep an eye out for new plugin
crashes that you're seeing. In crash-stats, this should show up with an
abort mess
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Masayuki Nakano wrote:
> So, my question is, why do we still have Qt widget in mozilla-central? What
> the reason of keeping it in mozilla-central?
My understanding is that
https://git.merproject.org/mer-core/qtmozembed/ still uses it. As we
are figuring out how t
I'm not sure if this is the right list for this, but I thought I'd
better bring this to your attention.
Previous release directories have carried checksum files, with
signatures and a key file that allows the various binary files to be
validated. See, for example,
http://releases.mozilla.org/
On 12/04/2016 01:16, Justin Dolske wrote:
Looks like Gijs replied in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1255526#c21, and the
contributor's last comment for the day was acknowledgment that he'd stop.
Yes. I got another email personally, from which it seems that they
thought the commen
18 matches
Mail list logo
