[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: upcoming issues with python-hulahop, python-xpcom, xulrunner-1.9.2

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:28:26 (EDT), Darren Salt wrote:

> I demand that Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton may or may not have written...
> [snip]
>> basically, an interpretation of the decision from the mozilla foundation is
>> that all languages but javascript can get lost.  i do not understand why,
>> after years of support thanks to xpcom, _just_ when there's a project which
>> actually _uses_ alternative language bindings 100% and i meaaan 100%, the
>> mozilla foundation slams the door in its face and in the face of every
>> other project using xpcom.
> I'm wondering whether I should start investigating alternative Javascript
> libraries, given Mozilla's (apparent) reluctance to install libmozjs as
> anything other than a private library for use by xulrunner-using apps.
> That said, if anybody is prepared to take the Ubuntu workaround for this in
> their gxine package and make that suitable for upstream, I'll take that
> instead. I did try to push for something which is acceptable for upstream,
> but no, distribution-specific workaround...

Ubuntu is currently using this wrapper to get gxine started:
| #!/bin/sh
| #
| #  wrapper for finding libmozjs.so. See https://launchpad.net/bugs/542506
| #  Copyright (C) 2010, Reinhard Tartler <siretart@ubuntu.com>
| #
| #  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
| #  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
| #  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
| #  (at your option) any later version.
| LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/usr/lib/xulrunner-`xulrunner-1.9.2 --gre-version`:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH"
| exec `which gxine.real` "$@"

Would this be acceptable to you for inclusion into gxine upstream? I
suppose not, that's why I've didn't forward it (yet). If you are
interested in the full patch, see

I *guess* something more appropriate would be to use an RPATH on the
gxine binary here, but I didn't look into this more closely.

> (I suppose that I could create a Ubuntu-based chroot, but I'd rather avoid
> that.)

no need for that, you can use debian's dpkg-source utility to extract
ubuntu source packages, too.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

Reply to: