Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 13 Jul 2010 at 1:57
Here's a diff that lets FireTray be built and run against XULRunner 1.9.x and
XULRunner 2.0.
I changed the nsMinimize.js component to use XPCOMUtils for XULRunner 2.0
compatibility (and it's cleaner). This required me to bump the minimum versions
for Thunderbird and Sunbird (I think all the other supported products should
already be compatible). Compatibility could probably be achieved without
XPCOMUtils, but I didn't feel like investigating into it. Plus, Thunderbird 2
is pretty much EOS/EOL, so I don't feel too bad about that.
FYI, binary components built with XULRunner 2.0 are not yet compatible with
XULRunner 1.9.x
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=586523
But it might be more desirable to produce separate builds for XULRunner 1.9.x
and XULRunner 2.0. That way you're not statically linking unnecessary stuff and
you can take advantage of XULRunner 2.0 things (like mozalloc if someone can
figure out the build issues).
Nightly builds of the XULRunner 2.0 sdk are available here:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 20 Aug 2010 at 8:41
Attachments:
New diff. Now links against the new xpcomglue_s_nomozalloc lib.
FireTray built with XULRunner 2.0 should now be run-time compatible with
XULRunner 1.9.x. I haven't tested this (not easy on an x64 only system), but it
should be.
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 28 Aug 2010 at 7:02
Attachments:
Thanks for the patch, I am using a slightly modified version :
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=mozilla-firetray.git;a=blob;f=mozilla-fi
retray-0.2.8-fix-xpcom-registration.patch;h=4713d17203523244d69886bba30a281dc5bc
3dc8;hb=HEAD
Original comment by hicham.h...@gmail.com
on 14 Sep 2010 at 8:20
FYI that build will not be compatible with XULRunner 1.9.x applications (no
mozalloc support). If that was the intention, theres not much point in keeping
around the other 1.9.x compatibility code either.
Also, according to the XPCOM Glue documentation, you should not be linking
against xpcomglue and xpcomglue_s at the same time.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XPCOM_Glue
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 1:21
Before I pushed that build, I tested it with all applications available in
Fedora :
- Firefox 4.0b4 (xulrunner-2.0b4)
- Seamonkey 2.0.5 (gecko-1.9.1.10)
- Thunderbird 3.1.3 (gecko-1.9.2.9)
- Sunbird 1.1a1pre (gecko-1.9.2.9)
- Chatzilla 0.9.86 (xulrunner-2.0b4)
And they all worked without problems
Original comment by hicham.h...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 1:56
If I build with mozalloc, and install it into Firefox 3.5 (Gecko 1.9.1), I get
Failed to load XPCOM component:
/tmp/ff/extensions/{9533f794-00b4-4354-aa15-c2bbda6989f8}/components/libnptray_x
86_64.so
However if I add -DMOZ_NO_MOZALLOC and only link against xpcomglue_s_nomozalloc
it works fine. Do you have a system-wide install of XULRunner 2.0 that the
extension could be dynamically linking against?
Also, new diff. Fixed building with mozalloc (thanks hicham.haouari for the
mozilla-config.h tidbit). Added a command line flag to control Gecko 1.9
compatability when building with Gecko 2.0
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 3:56
Attachments:
I admit that my approach isn't suitable to make firetray redistributable via
the addon manager.
But I have been constrained by the lack of xpcomglue_s_nomozalloc, since
xulrunner-2.0b4 in Fedora is compiled with mozalloc support. The downside is
that xulrunner will be pulled even for applications that do not use it (
Thunderbird, Seamonkey, Sunbird).
Original comment by hicham.h...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 1:07
xpcomglue_s_nomozalloc was added in 2.0b5.
Since I assume it's being built out of the Firefox package, 4.0b6 was released
yesterday. So update and you should be all set.
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 9:25
Thanks, I will have to wait for xulrunner to be updated as it is not mine.
Original comment by hicham.h...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 9:49
New diff. Thunderbird just had a version bump. I think the intention is
Thunderbird 3.2 will use XULRunner 1.9.2 and Thunderbird 3.3 will use XULRunner
2.0.
Also, extensions with binary components are kind of broken on Gecko 2.0 right
now because they're not installed unpacked anymore. So I added
<em:unpack>true</em:unpack> to the install.rdf to force them to be unpacked.
This should be removed later, when it's fixed.
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 10:00
Attachments:
Thunderbird 3.1.3 uses gecko-1.9.2.9 FWIW
Original comment by hicham.h...@gmail.com
on 15 Sep 2010 at 10:07
Re-base patch to current trunk (revision 112).
Also, this changes the Gecko 1.9.x compatibility command line flag from
"--no-gecko19" to "--gecko19-compat". Basically, it's a change from enabling
Gecko 1.9.x compatibility by default to disabling it by default.
Original comment by SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 26 Oct 2010 at 1:46
Attachments:
Issue 155 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2011 at 5:31
Issue 157 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2011 at 5:32
Issue 159 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2011 at 5:33
Is anyone going to post a test xpi soon ?
Original comment by sgray...@gmail.com
on 31 Mar 2011 at 9:55
Yes, after fixing some problems with the virtual machines used to build the
component, I will prepare a test release and publish it in the download area.
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 1 Apr 2011 at 8:44
http://code.google.com/p/firetray/wiki/firetray030svn117
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 1 Apr 2011 at 8:30
Fine! Works great with FF4.0 on Ubuntu 10.10 64bit. Thanks.
Original comment by jan.raub...@googlemail.com
on 1 Apr 2011 at 9:23
Works in debian squeeze 6.0.1 32bit
Original comment by sgray...@gmail.com
on 1 Apr 2011 at 9:29
fine with ff 4 on gentoo 64 bit
Original comment by patrizio.bassi
on 1 Apr 2011 at 9:57
Original comment by fsoltr...@gmail.com
on 5 Jul 2011 at 10:02
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
SparkyBl...@gmail.com
on 5 Jul 2010 at 6:26