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

[Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:02:41AM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> 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`:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH"
> | export LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> | 
> | exec `which gxine.real` "$@"
> `----
> 
> 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
> http://patches.ubuntu.com/g/gxine/gxine_0.5.904-2ubuntu3.1.patch
> 
> 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.

And both these are useless in Debian.

Mike