On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Mike Hommey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46 >> >> mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your >> capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what >> to do now about hulahop? i've been asked to help get hulahop into a >> working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's >> impossible. > > Without specifics, there's not much I can do.
that bugreport (#678977) contains the patches and various compile-time arguments that are needed to fix that _one_ bug. the other one is something that's still under investigation, which again looks to me to be memory corruption (a function which returns pointers to a list of windows returns a pointer with a value of 0x100000: it's too coincidental a value to be correct). >> that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that >> xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making >> it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop. > > We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the > archive We don't scale that much. actually, you already have four! xulrunner 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 9.0 and 10.0.2 but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but essentially what i need to do is to create a package python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 why? because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're f****d, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. > The good news for you is that > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released > in wheezy. argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? i'll test that out. l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
