#3084: Using the XulRunner tarball
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Reporter: ra...@… | Owner: blfs-b...@…
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 6.5
Component: BOOK | Version: SVN
Severity: normal | Keywords:
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Comment(by ra...@…):
After thinking about this a bit more, I just cannot see the
Mozilla developers maintaining more than one Xulrunner tree.
Seems they would be smarter than that (it is time consuming
and subject to errors to update multiple trees for minor
changes).
Additionally, is it just coincidence that the directory name
of the unpacked Firefox tarball is for example mozilla-1.9.2,
the exact version number of the current Xulrunner tarball?
Probably not.
Furthermore, what if one doesn't want Firefox, but needs
Xulrunner only? It seems unconventional to download a Firefox
tarball for the Xulrunner code when there is a dedicated
Xulrunner tarball.
Some current book text:
<para><command>echo "Requires: nspr"
>>xulrunner/installer/libxul-embedding.pc.in</command>: If you try to
build
<application>Yelp</application> without this, the
prtypes header from NSPR will not be found. It is arguable whose
error this
is (the code presumably works on earlier geckos), but this fix is
unlikely
to cause any damage in other packages.</para>
This must be changed. We cannot be saying that damage is "unlikely",
because that means there is a chance for damage. It should indicate
that there will be *no* damage.
I would like to continue to discuss the decision to use the Firefox
tarball to install Xulrunner.
--
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/3084#comment:5>
BLFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs>
Beyond Linux From Scratch
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
