Re: Removing support for OS/2

Hello Ehsan, 10 февр. 2014 г., в 20:19, Ehsan Akhgari написал(а): > Can you please point us to where this work is happening? I'm only aware of > this repository: This is the right place. > Do you plan to move your development to trunk in the near

Re: Removing support for OS/2

11 февр. 2014 г., в 0:01, Ehsan Akhgari написал(а): > OK, that works for me. FWIW any time that you guys decide to revive this > code in your own private branch, you can simply revert the patch to bug > 969757 and merge it against the trunk, and start working on the port with > that baseline.

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > > Another issue, are you planning to upstream your work to Mozilla in the > > near future? > > Regardless of intent, I don't think any OS/2 support patches should be > accepted in mozilla-central. A platform port like that is too "high > touch

Re: Removing support for OS/2

> Another issue, are you planning to upstream your work to Mozilla in the > near future? Regardless of intent, I don't think any OS/2 support patches should be accepted in mozilla-central. A platform port like that is too "high touch" and low-value to be worth the maintenance burden in mozilla-cen

Re: Removing support for OS/2

Hi Dmitriy, On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Dmitriy Kuminov wrote: > Gregory, > > 08 февр. 2014 г., в 10:57, Gregory Szorc написал(а): > > > On 8/7/13, 1:00 PM, d...@dmik.org wrote: > >> Regarding the main subject. There are many OS/2 parts that are still > valid (e.g. the NSPR code) so if yo

Re: Removing support for OS/2

Gregory, 08 февр. 2014 г., в 10:57, Gregory Szorc написал(а): > On 8/7/13, 1:00 PM, d...@dmik.org wrote: >> Regarding the main subject. There are many OS/2 parts that are still valid >> (e.g. the NSPR code) so if you will drop them we will have to reapply them >> back in our repo. And if we pu

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On 2/8/2014 1:57 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > Bug 969757 currently has a patch to remove most remnants of OS/2 from > the *entire* tree. If you have any interest in preserving references > to OS/2 in the tree, now would be the time to speak up. > To be blunt: this ship has sailed. I don't think we

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On 8/7/13, 1:00 PM, d...@dmik.org wrote: пятница, 2 августа 2013 г., 3:13:23 UTC+4 пользователь Gregory Szorc написал: Are there any objections to this proposal? Hello everybody, I'm the person who's being actively working now on getting Mozilla build on OS/2 again with all the new IPC stuff

Re: Removing support for OS/2

четверг, 8 августа 2013 г., 0:48:04 UTC+4 пользователь Chris Peterson написал: > Why does the OS/2 port need a different build system? I'm not familiar > > with OS/2 development, but is GNU Make not an option? If it were only GNU Make it wouldn't be such a problem (we have quite a recent GNU M

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On 8/7/13 1:00 PM, d...@dmik.org wrote: What about switching the build system, it's not our primary task of course but it will be done sooner or later — this is all to have a more robust build environment Why does the OS/2 port need a different build system? I'm not familiar with OS/2 develo

Re: Removing support for OS/2

пятница, 2 августа 2013 г., 3:13:23 UTC+4 пользователь Gregory Szorc написал: > Are there any objections to this proposal? Hello everybody, I'm the person who's being actively working now on getting Mozilla build on OS/2 again with all the new IPC stuff in. As Peter said, at the present time we

Re: Removing support for OS/2

Hi, sorry for the delay to reply. My change was performed mechanically without any tests. So, I don't know if the OS/2 widget is actually alive. However, I was requested a review of IME code for OS/2 on this June. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768742 Therefore, I was thinking th

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On 8/3/13 8:11 AM, Peter Weilbacher wrote: We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in March 2011. While OS/2 is a tier-3 supported build configuration [1], we wil

Re: Removing support for OS/2

Hi Gregory et al., On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Mike Hommey wrote: > CCing the last two persons who submitted patches for OS/2 > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system > > and source tree. According to Kyle Hu

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On 2013-08-01, at 7:38 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system >> and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since >> we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > There have been OS/2-related changes landing way after that date, so I > doubt it is actually broken. In fact, there's been an OS/2 specific > landing a week ago (!). Bug 501496 and bug 712105 were pretty mechanical changes that just mirrored c

Re: Removing support for OS/2

CCing the last two persons who submitted patches for OS/2 On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system > and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since > we removed --disable-ipc (bug 63875

Re: Removing support for OS/2

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:13:23PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: > We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system > and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since > we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in March 2011. There have been OS/2-related changes lan

Removing support for OS/2

We have a number of references to OS/2 throughout the build system and source tree. According to Kyle Huey OS/2 has likely broken since we removed --disable-ipc (bug 638755) in March 2011. While OS/2 is a tier-3 supported build configuration [1], we will shortly be rewriting a bunch of the bui