Randy McMurchy wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > >> Okay...done. Checks OK. >> >> NSPR-4.7.3: >> >> NSS-3.12.0: >> > > Once again as I must have missed the original proposal to separate > the packages, why are we doing it? > > Here's the questions I have. > > 1. What is wrong with leaving them together? Hopefully it isn't > because we have to use a 5 month old tarball. I say this because > it will probably be a year or more after the book is updated > before it is updated again. So whatever versions we put in the > book will be just as obsolete 6 months from now. > Really, it comes down to a matter of taste. From my POV, the reverse is a suitable question...but I hate it when people do that to me! ;-) I think just about everyone dislikes having private copies of programs/libs when a suitable system program/library is available. NSPR uses an auto-tooled build, whereas nss still uses coreconf. Why patch in nspr changes to the nss tree if not needed? That is the only argument for, and package separation. I can however, immediately see on the other side of the argument, nss, and in turn, xulrunner have to be rebuilt anyway if a new version of nspr comes out with security fixes....following that logic, we shouldn't even have separate nss/nspr...only separate out xulrunner.
> It looks to me that the NSS devs put out a new release about > every 6 months (for the last few years this has been the pattern). > So, going on this, and because an NSS-3.12.1-RC2 is available in > CVS, a new release of NSS is right around the corner. > > Cool...get to start all over agian! :-) > 2. Are there no test suites in the individual packages to somewhat > confirm a working installation (as we have now). > > Yes. Should be the same as they are in the current one, but I haven't tried them. Nss just always seems to be a PITA, and not just for LFSers. > 3. Current Firefox uses NSPR 4.7.1 and the NSS-3.12.1 RC. This is > different than both of the versions DJ used. Seems the combined > tarball is much closer to what the Firefox devs are using, than > what is being developed for BLFS. > > I'm not trying to rock the boat, I just want to get a good handle > on our reasoning to separate these two packages. I realize that > *right now* there is some lag in NSS, but in a week or two that > is likely to be resolved. > > I could be wrong here, as I've not tested anything or built > Firefox-3.0.4 yet. I may later in the day. Got other things going > on right now though. > > Additional conversation about this is welcomed. > Again, there is no particular reason other than it is available and *is* a separate package. As far as maintenance is concerned, the best bet is to use only the version in the released xulrunner. 3.7.0 and 3.12.0.3, are what ships with 3.0.3/1.9.0.3 which is what I was working from. 3.0.4 was only released yesterday...and I missed it...was an xulrunner-1.9.0.4 released as well? -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
