Send connman mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38 (Jeremy Linton)
2. Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38 (Daniel Wagner)
3. Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38 (Jeremy Linton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:29:22 -0500
From: Jeremy Linton <[email protected]>
To: Marcos Mello <[email protected]>, Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi,
On 04/10/2017 07:05 AM, Marcos Mello wrote:
> 2017-04-09 16:41 GMT-03:00 Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>:
>> Hi Marcos,
>>
>>
>> On 04/09/2017 09:09 PM, Marcos Mello wrote:
>>>
>>> Months ago Jeremy Linton posted patches porting pacrunner to mozjs24
>>> then mozjs38:
>>>
>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020903.html
>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020963.html
>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020964.html
>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020965.html
>>>
>>> The patches still apply fine in git master. Just need to run
>>> "autoreconf -fi" and build as usual.
>>>
>>> Things still work. My proxy exclusions based on isPlainHostName(),
>>> dnsDomainIs(), isInNet(), are working.
>>>
>>> Are there any objections to these patches? mozjs185 is complete
>>> obsolete at this point.
>>
>>
>> I think those patches fell through the crack. Would you mind to
>> update them and resend it? At least for the first patch there
>> was some feedback from Tomasz.
>>
>
> CCing Jeremy.
I can re-post, although my tendency at this point is to squash the two
sets together and remove the ability to work with mozjs24.
Thanks,
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:02:09 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
To: Jeremy Linton <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcos Mello <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Jeremy,
On 04/10/2017 10:29 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 04/10/2017 07:05 AM, Marcos Mello wrote:
>> 2017-04-09 16:41 GMT-03:00 Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>:
>>> On 04/09/2017 09:09 PM, Marcos Mello wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Months ago Jeremy Linton posted patches porting pacrunner to mozjs24
>>>> then mozjs38:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020903.html
>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020963.html
>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020964.html
>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020965.html
>>>>
>>>> The patches still apply fine in git master. Just need to run
>>>> "autoreconf -fi" and build as usual.
>>>>
>>>> Things still work. My proxy exclusions based on isPlainHostName(),
>>>> dnsDomainIs(), isInNet(), are working.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any objections to these patches? mozjs185 is complete
>>>> obsolete at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think those patches fell through the crack. Would you mind to
>>> update them and resend it? At least for the first patch there
>>> was some feedback from Tomasz.
>>>
>>
>> CCing Jeremy.
>
> I can re-post, although my tendency at this point is to squash the two
> sets together and remove the ability to work with mozjs24.
Please correct me if I got this wrong I am quite ignored when it comes
to JS. mozjs24 is not maintained anymore? Or are there other reasons to
update the dependency? Anyway, I don't have any strong opinion on this.
I just like to understand the reason why we do it.
Thanks,
Daniel
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:05:34 -0500
From: Jeremy Linton <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcos Mello <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Move pacrunner to mozjs38
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 04/11/2017 11:02 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On 04/10/2017 10:29 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> On 04/10/2017 07:05 AM, Marcos Mello wrote:
>>> 2017-04-09 16:41 GMT-03:00 Daniel Wagner <[email protected]>:
>>>> On 04/09/2017 09:09 PM, Marcos Mello wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Months ago Jeremy Linton posted patches porting pacrunner to mozjs24
>>>>> then mozjs38:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020903.html
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020963.html
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020964.html
>>>>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/connman/2016-September/020965.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches still apply fine in git master. Just need to run
>>>>> "autoreconf -fi" and build as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things still work. My proxy exclusions based on isPlainHostName(),
>>>>> dnsDomainIs(), isInNet(), are working.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any objections to these patches? mozjs185 is complete
>>>>> obsolete at this point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think those patches fell through the crack. Would you mind to
>>>> update them and resend it? At least for the first patch there
>>>> was some feedback from Tomasz.
>>>>
>>>
>>> CCing Jeremy.
>>
>> I can re-post, although my tendency at this point is to squash the two
>> sets together and remove the ability to work with mozjs24.
>
> Please correct me if I got this wrong I am quite ignored when it comes
> to JS. mozjs24 is not maintained anymore? Or are there other reasons to
> update the dependency? Anyway, I don't have any strong opinion on this.
> I just like to understand the reason why we do it.
Well, AFAIK the mozjs releases and support follow firefox, and even 38
ESR is now unsupported. This creates a problem for the distro's because
there are a dozen+ packages which are scattered around on different
versions of mozjs. Those older mozjs versions aren't getting any love,
or regular security updates. Having a service in this situation isn't a
great idea, since the supported versions are getting public security
disclosures.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/connman
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 18, Issue 9
**************************************
