On 05/13/2012 03:01 PM, Armin K. wrote: > On 05/13/2012 09:55 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: >> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:13:02 +0100 >> DJ Lucas<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Actually, I've been thinking a bit more on this one. As a compromise, we >>> could probably still get rid of the XUL Runner page and use only the >>> Firefox page to first build XUL Runner, and then Firefox in a separate >>> build directory from only the Firefox source tarball. This is the way >>> Firefox should actually be built anyway for our purposes. Without the >>> dev libs, a user cannot build browser extensions from source (still >>> ignoring the fact that the build tree needs to kept around). The FF >>> portion of the build should take< 0.1 SBU. The reason it is not done >>> that way by default is that the Mozilla devs choose not to cater to >>> developers, but rather end users...understandable give the huge Windows >>> target, but a minor PITA for us and a source of mild disagreement. >>> Anybody think this is a bad compromise? >> Yes, I think it's stupid to make people install half a gigabyte of >> files just to get a browser. Firefox works fine with 31 megabytes of >> files. Only people who want to make the java plugin will benefit from >> the extra half a gigabyte. It is years since I've installed java. >> >> Andy > Half a gigabyte? > > 29M /usr/lib/xulrunner > 3.6M /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel > 24M /usr/include/xulrunner > 6.8M /usr/share/idl/xulrunner > 6.8M /usr/lib/firefox > > About 70 MB when using Firefox with system Xulrunner. Think he is referring to the build size...actually...IDK.
-- 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
