Re: What should we do with iceweasel/xulrunner/libmozjs?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:55:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:51:58PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:44:35PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 08:00:13 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any insight from the release team?
> > > >
> > > What's the list of affected packages?
> > Most libmozjs-dev and xulrunner-dev build-rdeps. Unfortunately, I forgot
> > to get the list of failed builds I had done when recovering from my
> > btrfs problems. That'd take some effort to rebuild such list, but I can
> > tell you that the list of those that didn't fail was quite reduced. So
> > just consider all these build-rdeps at risk.
And for a real list of packages that are actually broken:
by xulrunner-dev/libmozjs-dev 2.0:
by xulrunner-dev/libmozjs-dev 5.0:
I will file corresponding bugs next week, after my VAC, except if someone
wants to beat me to it (logs are in
Note that moon and mediatomb already FTBFS on unstable (bugs already
existing) and that moon failure with patches from the corresponding bug
applied might actually not be entirely related to xulrunner-dev (though
a patched moon builds fine against xulrunner-dev 2.0)
Also note that totem and rhythmbox FTBFS in their version currently in
unstable, but not for the version in experimental.
Also note that there a few other failures that are due to a problem in
xulrunner-dev that I fixed locally and will push in next upload, namely
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=662224. I don't expect any
other of the FTBFSes above to be due to bugs in the mozilla headers.
As for the plan forward, considering there will be no upstream security
release for 4.0 (5.0 is considered to be that), the plan is to go
straight with version 5.0 (last beta available on mozilla.debian.net).