Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 12/20/05 16:41 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>1) I think we're all in agreement that we should not run the separate
>>configure/make routine as has been in the past and instead we move
>>to the recommended(?) method of creating a .mozconfig file and running
>>"make -f client.mk build" instead.
> 
> Why the '(?)' From their site,
> [snip just one example, though there are many others]
> 
> I would say that counts as recommended.

If it were the one and only place where they mention building the
package in that manner, I would agree with you. However, I can
assure you there are at least two other places on their web sites
that say (paraphrasing) "regardless how you configure the package,
by running configure, or ..." and "the .mozconfig file is picked
up and used if you build using the client.mk file or if you run
configure and make in separate steps".

Because they reference, in at least two spots, using configure
and make *or* building in another way, is why the (?). If they
didn't think folks did it, and they really wanted you not to, why
are they, in multiple places, documenting its use?

Moot point, though, as we've already committed to using the client.mk
file to build the package. I'm not sure what your motive is in
even bringing it up.


>>2) I suppose we should go ahead and use the Object dir for building.
>>If, for no other reason, because the MOZ documentation leads you to
>>believe that this is the way they recommend (unfortunately, later
>>there is contradiction in the MOZ docs on this subject). Additionally,
> 
> Just curious about the contradiction. Do you have a link or example?

Yes, however, note that I am trying my best here not to sound like
a "right didactic pompous arse" (BTW, thanks Richard for the
mention of "didactic", a very cool word and one I had to reference
the dictionary to even discover its meaning :-) ) but Jeremy the
links which contain the examples can be found here (you may have
to follow link after link within the ones shown before starting to
realize there are contradictions in the documentation):

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Main_Page
http://www.mozilla.com/

Yes, these two references are vague, however, I've been doing quite
a bit of reading and research on these (and other) sites and mail
lists and this is what I came up with. That there are some conflicts
and contradictions in the Mozilla documentation. Unfortunately, it
never dawned on me that anyone would care to see them, so I didn't
bookmark them.


>>ac_add_options --enable-system-cairo
>>
>>(I didn't use this option as enabling cairo is not a Firefox
>> default. We can enable it, but we need to tell everyone why
>> we are enabling it, and *exactly* what it provides, and how
>> it make the build better.)
> 
> Watching the recent gnome build I did, a lot of packages use cairo if
> you've got it. I'm not familiar with the details of cairo, but I agree,
> I think its something to look into.

I have no idea what your message is here. cairo is installed on the
system, yet best I can tell Firefox does not use it. The input I
was looking for from everyone was sort of "Yes, Randy, not using
cairo sounds like a good idea", or "No, Randy, we should be using
that switch because we *know* that cairo is installed on the system,
why not use it (with perhaps a reason why)". :-)

(something similar to what Dan provided about using the svg switch
with it also)?


> I know your focus has been firefox in this message, but when you come to
> T-Bird, please see this thread:
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-December/012419.html
> 
> I think the solution is worth including.

I will admit this thread confused me. I really never saw a solution
other than to download and install the about:config program for
Thunderbird, as this is the only way to get it until from what it
sounds like, Thunderbird-1.5 comes out.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
17:07:00 up 87 days, 2:31, 3 users, load average: 1.07, 0.76, 0.40
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to