From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue Apr 21 15:27:48 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LMRlTG011660 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LMRkY0011845 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:27:46 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00M012EAM400@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH006MD2E99J80@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LMRjhX007256 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:27:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH00I0024VDD00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:27:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH0056A2E6N6D0@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:27:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:26:41 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: LSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_yvItDqF5sJCHMhAK5rds3g)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 11319 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_yvItDqF5sJCHMhAK5rds3g) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, I am sponsoring this fast track for Partha Susarla from Sustaining in India. The case directory contains this proposal in the form of the 1-pager. The timer is set for April 28th, 2009. This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Because of build and runtime requirements for Firefox 3.0.x several Gnome libraries must also be back ported. These libraries are declared Project Private and are install along with Firefox 3.0.x in /opt/firefox3. Thanks, John --Boundary_(ID_yvItDqF5sJCHMhAK5rds3g) Content-type: text/plain; name=proposal.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline; filename=proposal.txt Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.35 07/11/07 SMI Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: Firefox 3.0.x on S10 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Parthasarathi Susarla 1.3. Date of This Document: 04/16/09 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: 03/30/09 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: -- None -- 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: Sanjay.Pandit@sun.com 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: Solaris RPE 1.5. Email Aliases: 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: Dan.Liu@sun.com 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: -- 1.5.4. Interest List: -- 2. Project Summary 2.1. Project Description: Solaris 10 ships with Firefox 2.x. Unfortunately, the community is ending support for this release. This project will back port Firefox 3.x browser to Solaris 10. Doing this requires several Gnome libraries to be backported too. 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: Firefox 3 is dependent on several packages that are shipped with gnome. The ones that are shipped with JDS3.1 on S10 are older and not compatible with Firefox 3.0.x So we need to get the set of 7 (see section 4.1) packages built and maintained as private libraries for firefox 3.0.x. 3. Business Summary 3.1. Problem Area: The Mozilla community is ending support for the Firefox 2.x that ships with Solaris 10. We need to upgrade to Firefox 3.0.x. This requires several Gnome libraries to be upgraded too. 3.2. Market/Requester: // Who is the customer or client that needs the project? // Include names or description of companies or groups // outside Sun that want the project. // NOTE: If this is for an Open Exposure project, DO NOT // include any XXX XXXXrietary info, Customer names, etc! 3.3. Business Justification: - NA - 3.4. Competitive Analysis: - NA - 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: - NA - 3.6. How will you know when you are done?: After the building of Firefox 3.0.x and its dependent packages is done, we will need to run test suites which include sanity tests, security tests, rendering tests and platform specific tests. The project is then ready to be putback (and is done at this stage). Support for the released project will continue to happen. 4. Technical Description: 4.1. Details: * This project essentially is a backport of Firefox 3.0.x to Solaris 10. As a part of backport we need to ship newer versions of several Gnome libraries. * The following Gnome libraries need to be upgraded: glib (glib.spec) atk (atk.spec) cairo(cairo.spec) pango(pango.spec) gtk2 (gtk2.spec) dbus (dbus.spec) dbus-glib (dbus-glib.spec) * These will be shipped as private libraries. These libraries are supported for only Firefox 3.0.x and are to be consider as project private. * The Firefox package and the dependent private libraies will be installed in /opt/firefox3 * Firefox and dependent libraries, 8 packages in all, need to be installed * The existing firefox 2.0.x plugins installed in /usr/lib/firefox/plugins will be copied to /opt/firefox3/lib/firefox/plugins. * The user profiles and personal settings/bookmarks/history from Firefox 2.0 will be used by Firefox 3.0.x as well, since both versions of the browser use the $HOME/./mozilla/firefox directory to save such data. * Firefox 3.0.X man-in-middle issue handling : /opt/sfw/bin/firefox will be a script that calls /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/run-mozilla.sh which will then call firefox-bin. /opt/sfw/bin/firefox and run-mozilla.sh scripts set a number of environment variables. All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh script to avoid linking/loading of the plugins with libraries older/different versions of the new libraries and they will always link to /opt/sfw/lib libraries. 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): CR Number: 6812941 4.3. In Scope: * install path of firefox and private libraries * private libraries support limited to firefox 3.0.x * plugins from firefox 2.0.x copied to firefox 3.0.x path 4.4. Out of Scope: * compatiblity of plugins installed for firefox 2.0 to firefox 3.0.x 4.5. Interfaces: +--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Interfaces Exported | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Interface Name | Classification | Comment | +===============================+==================+=================================+ | $HOME/.mozilla/firefox | Volatile | The location of user | | | | profiles | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/lib/firefox | Uncommitted | Install location | | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/bin/firefox | Committed | Link pointing to the | | | | default firefox, normally | | | |/opt/firefox3/lib/firefox/firefox| +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Firefox CLI | Uncommitted | Firefox command line interface | | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Firefox GUI | Volatile | Firefox graphical user interface| | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | /opt/firefox3/lib/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project private glib libraries | | /opt/firefox3/lib/libglib*.so | | version 2.14.4 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | /opt/firefox3/lib/libatk*.so | Project private | Project private atk libraries | | | | version 1.20.0 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/lib/libcairo*.so | Project private | Project private cairo libraries | | | | version 1.4.12 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/lib/libpango*.so | Project private | Project private pango libraries | | | | version 1.18.3 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/lib/libgtk*.so | Project private | Project private gtk2 libraries | | | | version 2.12.3 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/opt/firefox3/lib/libdbus*.so | Project private | Project private dbus and | | | | dbus-glib libraries | | | | version 1.1.20 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ 4.6. Doc Impact: // List any Documentation (man pages, manuals, service guides...) // that will be impacted by this proposal. 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: // How will this change impact the administration of the product? // Identify changes to GUIs, CLI, agents, plugins... 4.8. HA Impact: -- None -- 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: No. All the internationalization or localization is taken care of by the firefox packages. 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: -- 4.11. Security Impact: -- 4.12. Dependencies: Thre firefox 3.0.x upgrade depends on the following gnome 2.24 packages glib (glib.spec) atk (atk.spec) cairo(cairo.spec) pango(pango.spec) gtk2 (gtk2.spec) dbus (dbus.spec) dbus-glib (dbus-glib.spec) 5. Reference Documents: CR Number: 6812941 LSARC 2008/158 Firefox 3 for Solaris Nevada LSARC 2008/735 Firefox 3.1 for Solaris Nevada 6. Resources and Schedule: 6.1. Projected Availability: // Dates in appropriate precision (quarters, years) 6.2. Cost of Effort: // Order of magnitude people and time for the *whole* project, not // just the development engineering part. // You may wish to split the estimate between feature // implementation, implementing adminsitrative Interfaces, unit // tests, documentation, support training material, i18n, etc. 6.3. Cost of Capital Resources: // Order of magnitude. 6.4. Product Approval Committee requested information: 6.4.1. Consolidation or Component Name: Firefox 3.0.x 6.4.3. Type of CPT Review and Approval expected: FastTrack 6.4.4. Project Boundary Conditions: // Give the document's URL http://.... 6.4.5. Is this a necessary project for OEM agreements: No. 6.4.6. Notes: // See dependencies section above. 6.4.7. Target RTI Date/Release: S10u8_3, 7/7/2009 6.4.8. Target Code Design Review Date: 6.4.9. Update approval addition: -- 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open 6.6.1. Rationale: -- 7. Prototype Availability: 7.1. Prototype Availability: // Functional subset expected to be needed to leave "prototype" // stage. 7.2. Prototype Cost: // Subset of Cost of Effort to leave "prototype" stage. --Boundary_(ID_yvItDqF5sJCHMhAK5rds3g)-- From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Tue Apr 21 15:38:31 2009 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LMcUGH011935 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LMcMCv005364 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:38:29 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00F032W5MI00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:38:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH00CIC2W4GN40@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:38:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LMcSxi006511 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH00J002SMQ000@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.6.102.118] ([unknown] [10.6.102.118]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH00IP42W3UPE0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:38:27 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071119) Status: RO Content-Length: 1479 John Fischer wrote: > This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a > Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the Solaris Companion CD? > All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH > environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the Companion CD? (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any architectural reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue around supporting them? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From storycrafter@gmail.com Tue Apr 21 15:54:15 2009 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LMsEdd012536 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LMsBIc004855; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00H0H3MC5E00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:54:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH00CCX3MAGT60@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:54:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from relay14i.sun.com (ip124.net129179-4.block1.us.syntegra.com [129.179.4.124]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LMpxl3008577; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:54:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp11es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.208.11] [160.41.208.11]) by relay14i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-811198; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:54:10 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay15i.sun.com (relay15i.sun.com [129.179.4.125]) by mmp11es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-22519459; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:54:02 +0000 (Z) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.248] [209.85.132.248]) by relay1i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-19694870; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:54:02 +0000 (Z) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so808181ana.23 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.152.12 with SMTP id z12mr10090122and.141.1240354434153; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?172.16.12.121? ([70.232.181.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c28sm5033131anc.29.2009.04.21.15.53.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5) ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:53:52 -0500 From: Mark Martin Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <49EE4E80.4080908@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5RuQ1wXHpc4SzS+2DNfSZSqgFb1SlN5Y4wj4vsmChSo=; b=IjhEDwD1pXR22aKSntxCaDvxHYwPsa+yyKrqCe0Rws6xGZQXO/GYKRZmyHa+A0uO1X zJRFKjtiqhuxSvf3ZLeSLJb+gLlguwLwHs4UF9cm2jFQQJ5fuMcPQkIpvGbcNmOxXOXN wp7wV8bNvDNu7HbvRHPVHhhCeqTqlBMCNleD0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nvb6ceey3Y5S9hxqIFhL2T5ZUqVrzNGzZI3fymw9tKmsJl9gKWB4CbaPPjMqKKskTU zgttjIxyx0cKbgyTQ2ivLysCn7X1Q27+cfidKeZx1QsUNhuICQZjvxPA9PT79vMfjYtO hg1qWLsivD8dAlamW2NVks23QnfvV/U4p/nAw= X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Antispam: No, score=0.0/5.0, scanned in 0.060sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) Status: RO Content-Length: 983 John Fischer wrote: > All, > > I am sponsoring this fast track for Partha Susarla from Sustaining in > India. The case directory contains this proposal in the form of the > 1-pager. The timer is set for April 28th, 2009. > > This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a > Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Because > of build and runtime requirements for Firefox 3.0.x several Gnome > libraries must also be back ported. These libraries are declared > Project Private and are install along with Firefox 3.0.x in > /opt/firefox3. > Does this mean the backport will make its way onto onnv repo's and affect the current FF3 integration there? I'm confused as to why this is an open case if it's a backport to Solaris 10. This looks like an update to "LSARC/2006/694 Firefox 2 for Solaris Nevada and Solaris10 Update", as the other 2 cases you reference -- 2008/158 and 2008/735 -- reference Nevada alone and don't use /opt. From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue Apr 21 16:09:02 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LN91bW026670 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LN904N011222 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:09:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH004014B0X200@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH006RZ4B09H90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LN90EO021272 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:09:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH00400498JC00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH00IIG4AZBB30@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:08:59 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:07:57 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE4E80.4080908@gmail.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Mark Martin Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <49EE51CD.9030000@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4E80.4080908@gmail.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 1491 Mark, This will not go into a repo. It will only be included with an Update release of Solaris which is why the project is requesting a Patch release. Whether something goes into Open Solaris or Solaris (even in a Solaris Update) is irrelevant when making a case open or closed. There is nothing in this case that would dictate it being closed. With that said the /opt question is an important one that the project team needs to answer. Thanks, John Mark Martin wrote: > John Fischer wrote: >> All, >> >> I am sponsoring this fast track for Partha Susarla from Sustaining in >> India. The case directory contains this proposal in the form of the >> 1-pager. The timer is set for April 28th, 2009. >> >> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Because >> of build and runtime requirements for Firefox 3.0.x several Gnome >> libraries must also be back ported. These libraries are declared >> Project Private and are install along with Firefox 3.0.x in >> /opt/firefox3. >> > Does this mean the backport will make its way onto onnv repo's and > affect the current FF3 integration there? I'm confused as to why this > is an open case if it's a backport to Solaris 10. This looks like an > update to "LSARC/2006/694 Firefox 2 for Solaris Nevada and Solaris10 > Update", as the other 2 cases you reference -- 2008/158 and 2008/735 -- > reference Nevada alone and don't use /opt. > > From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue Apr 21 16:11:14 2009 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LNBDnN014644 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LNBBKo011252 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00I094EOXS00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH00CHY4EOGQ70@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LNBC5T026513 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:11:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH001004886000@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH00E1X4ENA2C0@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:11:12 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:10:10 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 1604 Alan, I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for catching that one. I'll let the project team address these issues. Thanks, John Alan Coopersmith wrote: > John Fischer wrote: >> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. > > Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate > web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be > wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). > > Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? > > The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can > we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the > Solaris Companion CD? > >> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh > > This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib > directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the Companion CD? > > (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type > variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 > to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) > > Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be > shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? > > For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any architectural > reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue around supporting > them? > From storycrafter@gmail.com Tue Apr 21 16:20:16 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3LNKFQD009354 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3LNK7Ev018451; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:20:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00H1X4TLZF00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.43.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH006044TJGIE0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11i.sun.com (ip121.net129179-4.block1.us.syntegra.com [129.179.4.121]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3LNDJWh022861; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp11es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.208.11] [160.41.208.11]) by relay11i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-812892; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:07 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay11i.sun.com (relay11i.sun.com [129.179.4.121]) by mmp11es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-22541297; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:03 +0000 (Z) Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.153] [74.125.46.153]) by relay1i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-19775444; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:03 +0000 (Z) Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 4so2267046ywq.68 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.207.14 with SMTP id e14mr10393914ang.139.1240356000636; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?172.16.12.121? ([70.232.181.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d21sm5236713and.37.2009.04.21.16.19.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5) ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:19:59 -0500 From: Mark Martin Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE51CD.9030000@sun.com> To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <49EE549F.9090501@gmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JTL1d3vwD1/hN1auiFbb+o0pinzZSKrmwOqMKyInAzw=; b=lG5Snh8Lt2kOw7ToZccRcvL0k+HJi+3Hu2YJIAJudxdKB01aHT8piG4K5TScw2R83O Q1eiDhtbw0OS6juh/Xrjl9piC9WtqVbeuCKhYoIB63LtEoNVl9VHtU9yspEU3bbSpVuQ Vb64K4aBIPA/CDjzN5cpE9gS7AYA5lw74uits= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CGlEQ22GOonPacsvo5mg2SgTV2DT/450EqSBFV+ZHGbHTl+ofueAkAFntmchuGF1h0 nBTck1vrAFmBK6j65VU6gnfLwcL9kw3PpaMlj/OR510qtdcDzKX8z5sb+RQfX31pG4X5 bZH7cid4r5yvfOvQsFsEb9YNAN+HZA685i09A= X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Antispam: No, score=-0.2/5.0, scanned in 0.076sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4E80.4080908@gmail.com> <49EE51CD.9030000@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) Status: RO Content-Length: 1962 John Fischer wrote: > Mark, > > This will not go into a repo. It will only be included with an Update > release of Solaris which is why the project is requesting a Patch > release. > > Whether something goes into Open Solaris or Solaris (even in a Solaris > Update) is irrelevant when making a case open or closed. There is > nothing in this case that would dictate it being closed. > > With that said the /opt question is an important one that the project > team needs to answer. I understood that much, I'm just wondering why the bother (if you will) if no one externally can see, touch, or smell the _code_ produced -- i.e. ostensibly it won't go through any of the rest of the "open" process e.g. code review. Calling it "open" seems like a misnomer. But it's not my bother and usually I'm whinging about opening cases, so I'll shut up and wait for the answer on /opt. > > Thanks, > > John > > Mark Martin wrote: >> John Fischer wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I am sponsoring this fast track for Partha Susarla from Sustaining in >>> India. The case directory contains this proposal in the form of the >>> 1-pager. The timer is set for April 28th, 2009. >>> >>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Because >>> of build and runtime requirements for Firefox 3.0.x several Gnome >>> libraries must also be back ported. These libraries are declared >>> Project Private and are install along with Firefox 3.0.x in >>> /opt/firefox3. >>> >> Does this mean the backport will make its way onto onnv repo's and >> affect the current FF3 integration there? I'm confused as to why >> this is an open case if it's a backport to Solaris 10. This looks >> like an update to "LSARC/2006/694 Firefox 2 for Solaris Nevada and >> Solaris10 Update", as the other 2 cases you reference -- 2008/158 and >> 2008/735 -- reference Nevada alone and don't use /opt. >> >> From Brian.Cameron@sun.com Tue Apr 21 20:33:47 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3M3Xldf012287 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3M3Xiir002528 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:33:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH00I13GK85X00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH00JGSGK8WOD0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3M3Xh5B026786 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:33:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH00500GI3EB00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:33:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] ([unknown] [187.152.16.109]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH00MQQGK6G920@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:33:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:33:55 -0500 From: Brian Cameron Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> Sender: Brian.Cameron@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <49EE9023.3080508@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090406 Thunderbird/3.0b2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1743 I know that the JavaFX team needs GStreamer 0.10 supported on Solaris 10. GStreamer 0.10 depends on GLib 2.12 or newer. Do we plan to integrate GLib 2.12 or newer as a part of the Firefox update? Could you provide more specific information about what exact versions of the dependencies you intend to integrate for Firefox? I do not think /opt/firefox is a good private directory to place libraries that should be shared across multiple projects like JavaFX and Firefox. Could we put them somewhere more general? If the Desktop team is going to the bother to add these libraries for Firefox, then could we coordinate with the JavaFX team so that GStreamer 0.10 could also be added in a way that both projects can use these updated libraries? Will Solaris 10 support both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3, or will Firefox 2 be removed when Firefox 3 is added? Shouldn't there be some doc impact. I'd think that there would be some manpage work to mention in section 4.6. How does user configuration migrate from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3? Does Firefox work well for users who use a shared $HOME directory on systems that may be using different versions of Firefox? Brian > I am sponsoring this fast track for Partha Susarla from Sustaining in > India. The case directory contains this proposal in the form of the > 1-pager. The timer is set for April 28th, 2009. > > This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a > Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. Because > of build and runtime requirements for Firefox 3.0.x several Gnome > libraries must also be back ported. These libraries are declared > Project Private and are install along with Firefox 3.0.x in > /opt/firefox3. > > Thanks, > > John From Abhijit.Nath@sun.com Tue Apr 21 21:47:06 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3M4l6Op014084 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3M4l4eQ038353 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:47:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIH0051ZJYGA900@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIH00MQFJYE9E80@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3M4l23o007463 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:47:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIH00400JWN8D00@mail-apac.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:47:02 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.158.193.230] ([unknown] [129.158.193.230]) by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIH006LSJY90I70@mail-apac.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:47:02 +0800 (SGT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:17:09 +0530 From: Abhijit Nath Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> Sender: Abhijit.Nath@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: Alan Coopersmith , LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com Message-id: <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081215) Status: RO Content-Length: 2220 Alan/John, Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a common place. We'll revert back asap. Thanks, Abhijit On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: > Alan, > > I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for > catching that one. > > I'll let the project team address these issues. > > Thanks, > > John > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> John Fischer wrote: >>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >> >> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >> >> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >> >> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - >> can >> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the >> Solaris Companion CD? >> >>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >> >> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib >> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >> Companion CD? >> >> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >> >> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >> >> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >> architectural >> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue around >> supporting >> them? >> From ceri@submonkey.net Wed Apr 22 15:08:41 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3MM8ecT024677 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3MM8W5q010171; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:08:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KII00L1RW6AAZ00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.43.21]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KII00DD3W69LY60@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay41i.sun.com ([192.5.209.70]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3MLxisE022659; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:08:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mmp43es.mmp.us.syntegra.com ([160.41.221.12] [160.41.221.12]) by relay41i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-1273955; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:08:32 +0000 (Z) Received: from relay42i.sun.com (relay42i.sun.com [192.5.209.72]) by mmp43es.mmp.us.syntegra.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-410031; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:08:30 +0000 (Z) Received: from scuttle.submonkey.net ([208.111.43.184] [208.111.43.184]) by relay4i.sun.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-21825746; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:08:29 +0000 (Z) Received: from cpc1-cdif1-0-0-cust63.cdif.cable.ntl.com ([81.104.164.64] helo=shrike.submonkey.net) by scuttle.submonkey.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LwkcH-00051K-9b; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:08:29 +0000 Received: from ceri by shrike.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LwkcF-000KQO-3D; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:08:27 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:08:27 +0100 From: Ceri Davies Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EE9023.3080508@sun.com> Sender: Ceri Davies To: Brian Cameron Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <20090422220826.GC54875@submonkey.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-PGP: finger ceri@FreeBSD.org X-Antispam: No, score=0.0/5.0, scanned in 0.218sec at (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smf-spamd v1.3.1 - http://smfs.sf.net/ References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE9023.3080508@sun.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Status: RO Content-Length: 925 --b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:33:55PM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > How does user configuration migrate from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3? Does > Firefox work well for users who use a shared $HOME directory on systems > that may be using different versions of Firefox? Additionally, if a user tries Firefox 3 and subsequently attempts to run Firefox 2, does that work? Ceri --=20 That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere --b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJ75VaocfcwTS3JF8RAm+JAJ4nko43cZtPGmlsNcNKYgkDdq3kJwCfYbQK byXsK0s2ZbjTQQ9Sa1puvNk= =S+ho -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --b5gNqxB1S1yM7hjW-- From John.Fischer@sun.com Mon Apr 27 15:50:39 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3RMocXe000190 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n3RMoB9G003544 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:50:38 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KIS006037GCUV00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KIS00E9Y7GBHG90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3RMoZ4r003754 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:50:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KIS00300786JN00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:50:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.7] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KIS008LJ7FYUDE0@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:50:22 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:49:15 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: LSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: Abhijit Nath , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 2582 All, I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will restart the timer appropriately. Thanks, John Abhijit Nath wrote: > Alan/John, > Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ Firefox > 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". > You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the one > pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. > > Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded gnome > libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to check the > feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a common place. > We'll revert back asap. > > Thanks, > Abhijit > > On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >> Alan, >> >> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >> catching that one. >> >> I'll let the project team address these issues. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> John Fischer wrote: >>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>> >>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>> >>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>> >>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - >>> can >>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the >>> Solaris Companion CD? >>> >>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>> >>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib >>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>> Companion CD? >>> >>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>> >>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>> >>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>> architectural >>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue around >>> supporting >>> them? >>> > From John.Fischer@sun.com Wed May 13 06:54:54 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4DDsrRu014731 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 06:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4DDspJX010138 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 14:54:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJL0020F5BFJY00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJL009B85BEJE90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4DDsolE005741 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 13:54:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KJL00B004Y3VZ00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 07:54:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.8] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KJL00CJW5B0JQG0@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 07:54:37 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 06:53:23 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: LSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_6KxfB+OM2lOEVn5Wv1q1/w)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 13640 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_6KxfB+OM2lOEVn5Wv1q1/w) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer for Wednesday May 20th, 2009. Thanks, John John Fischer wrote: > All, > > I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team > to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome > libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will restart > the timer appropriately. > > Thanks, > > John > > Abhijit Nath wrote: >> Alan/John, >> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ Firefox >> 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the one >> pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >> >> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded >> gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to check >> the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a common >> place. We'll revert back asap. >> >> Thanks, >> Abhijit >> >> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>> Alan, >>> >>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>> catching that one. >>> >>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>> >>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>> >>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>> >>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ >>>> - can >>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the >>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>> >>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>>> >>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib >>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>> Companion CD? >>>> >>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>> >>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>> >>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>> architectural >>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue around >>>> supporting >>>> them? >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org --Boundary_(ID_6KxfB+OM2lOEVn5Wv1q1/w) Content-type: text/plain; name=proposal.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline; filename=proposal.txt Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.35 07/11/07 SMI Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: Firefox 3.0.x on S10 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Parthasarathi Susarla 1.3. Date of This Document: 05/12/09 1.3.1. Date this project was conceived: 03/30/09 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): 1.4.1. The PAC or CPT you expect to review your project: 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: -- None -- 1.4.3. The Director/VP who is "Sponsoring" this project: Sanjay.Pandit@sun.com 1.4.4. The name of your business unit: Solaris RPE 1.5. Email Aliases: 1.5.1. Responsible Manager: Dan.Liu@sun.com 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com 1.5.3. Marketing Manager: -- 1.5.4. Interest List: -- 2. Project Summary 2.1. Project Description: Solaris 10 ships with Firefox 2.x. Unfortunately, the community is ending support for this release. This project will back port Firefox 3.x browser to Solaris 10 and it will replace Firefox 2.x. Doing this requires several Gnome libraries to be backported too. 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: Firefox 3 is dependent on several packages that are shipped with gnome. The ones that are shipped with JDS3.1 on S10 are older and not compatible with Firefox 3.0.x So we need to get the set of 7 (see section 4.1) packages built and maintained as private libraries for firefox 3.0.x. 3. Business Summary 3.1. Problem Area: The Mozilla community is ending support for the Firefox 2.x that ships with Solaris 10. We need to upgrade to Firefox 3.0.x. This requires several Gnome libraries to be upgraded too. 3.2. Market/Requester: // Who is the customer or client that needs the project? // Include names or description of companies or groups // outside Sun that want the project. // NOTE: If this is for an Open Exposure project, DO NOT // include any XXX XXXprietary info, Customer names, etc! 3.3. Business Justification: - NA - 3.4. Competitive Analysis: - NA - 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: - NA - 3.6. How will you know when you are done?: After the building of Firefox 3.0.x and its dependent packages is done, we will need to run test suites which include sanity tests, security tests, rendering tests and platform specific tests. The project is then ready to be putback (and is done at this stage). Support for the released project will continue to happen. 4. Technical Description: 4.1. Details: * This project essentially is a backport of Firefox 3.0.x to Solaris 10. As a part of backport we need to ship newer versions of several Gnome libraries. * The following Gnome libraries need to be upgraded: glib (glib.spec) atk (atk.spec) cairo(cairo.spec) pango(pango.spec) gtk2 (gtk2.spec) dbus (dbus.spec) dbus-glib (dbus-glib.spec) * These will be shipped as private libraries. These libraries are supported for only Firefox 3.0.x and are to be consider as project private. * The Firefox package and the dependent private libraies will be installed in /usr/lib/gnome-private * Firefox and dependent libraries, 8 packages in all, need to be installed * The existing firefox 2.0.x plugins installed in /usr/lib/firefox/plugins, the location will remain same for firefox 3.0.x packages also. * The user profiles and personal settings/bookmarks/history from Firefox 2.0 will be used by Firefox 3.0.x as well, since both versions of the browser use the $HOME/./mozilla/firefox directory to save such data. * Firefox 3.0.X man-in-middle issue handling : /usr/bin/firefox will be a script that calls /usr/lib/firefox/firefox run-mozilla.sh which will then call firefox-bin. /usr/bin/firefox and run-mozilla.sh scripts set a number of environment variables. All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable will be set to /usr/lib/gnome-private in run-mozilla.sh script to avoid linking/loading of the plugins with libraries older/different versions of the new libraries and they will always link to /usr/lib/gnome-private libraries. 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): CR Number: 6812941 4.3. In Scope: * install path of firefox and private libraries * private libraries support limited to firefox 3.0.x * plugins from firefox 2.0.x copied to firefox 3.0.x path 4.4. Out of Scope: * compatiblity of plugins installed for firefox 2.0 to firefox 3.0.x 4.5. Interfaces: +--------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Interfaces Exported | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Interface Name | Classification | Comment | +===============================+==================+=================================+ | $HOME/.mozilla/firefox | Volatile | The location of user | | | | profiles | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/lib/firefox | Uncommitted | Install location | | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/bin/firefox | Committed | Link pointing to the | | | | default firefox, normally | | | | /usr/lib/firefox/firefox | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Firefox CLI | Uncommitted | Firefox command line interface | | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | Firefox GUI | Volatile | Firefox graphical user interface| | | | | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project private glib libraries | |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version 2.14.4 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ | /usr/lib/gnome-private/libatk*.so | Project private | Project private atk libraries | | | | version 1.20.0 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libcairo*.so | Project private | Project private cairo libraries | | | | version 1.4.12 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ /usr/lib/gnome-private/libpango*.so | Project private | Project private pango libraries | | | | version 1.18.3 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ /usr/lib/gnome-private/libgtk*.so | Project private | Project private gtk2 libraries | | | | version 2.12.3 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libdbus*.so | Project private | Project private dbus and | | | | dbus-glib libraries | | | | version 1.1.20 | +-------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ 4.6. Doc Impact: // List any Documentation (man pages, manuals, service guides...) // that will be impacted by this proposal. 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: // How will this change impact the administration of the product? // Identify changes to GUIs, CLI, agents, plugins... 4.8. HA Impact: -- None -- 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: No. All the internationalization or localization is taken care of by the firefox packages. 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: -- 4.11. Security Impact: -- 4.12. Dependencies: Thre firefox 3.0.x upgrade depends on the following gnome 2.24 packages glib (glib.spec) atk (atk.spec) cairo(cairo.spec) pango(pango.spec) gtk2 (gtk2.spec) dbus (dbus.spec) dbus-glib (dbus-glib.spec) 5. Reference Documents: CR Number: 6812941 LSARC 2008/158 Firefox 3 for Solaris Nevada LSARC 2008/735 Firefox 3.1 for Solaris Nevada 6. Resources and Schedule: 6.1. Projected Availability: // Dates in appropriate precision (quarters, years) 6.2. Cost of Effort: // Order of magnitude people and time for the *whole* project, not // just the development engineering part. // You may wish to split the estimate between feature // implementation, implementing adminsitrative Interfaces, unit // tests, documentation, support training material, i18n, etc. 6.3. Cost of Capital Resources: // Order of magnitude. 6.4. Product Approval Committee requested information: 6.4.1. Consolidation or Component Name: Firefox 3.0.x 6.4.3. Type of CPT Review and Approval expected: FastTrack 6.4.4. Project Boundary Conditions: // Give the document's URL http://.... 6.4.5. Is this a necessary project for OEM agreements: No. 6.4.6. Notes: // See dependencies section above. 6.4.7. Target RTI Date/Release: S10u8_3, 7/7/2009 6.4.8. Target Code Design Review Date: 6.4.9. Update approval addition: -- 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open 6.6.1. Rationale: -- 7. Prototype Availability: 7.1. Prototype Availability: // Functional subset expected to be needed to leave "prototype" // stage. 7.2. Prototype Cost: // Subset of Cost of Effort to leave "prototype" stage. --Boundary_(ID_6KxfB+OM2lOEVn5Wv1q1/w)-- From John.Fischer@sun.com Wed May 13 10:02:09 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4DH276J017818 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4DH23fR018674 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 13 May 2009 18:02:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJL00205DZFNP00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJL00M4ADZFP460@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4DH250j021905 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 17:02:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KJL00300D8HHQ00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:02:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.8] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KJL00FJ6DYZMQC0@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 13 May 2009 11:01:47 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:00:34 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: LSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 3129 All, Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. Thanks, John John Fischer wrote: > All, > > Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer for > Wednesday May 20th, 2009. > > Thanks, > > John > > John Fischer wrote: >> All, >> >> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team >> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome >> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will restart >> the timer appropriately. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>> Alan/John, >>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ Firefox >>> 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the one >>> pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>> >>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded >>> gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to check >>> the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a common >>> place. We'll revert back asap. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Abhijit >>> >>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>> Alan, >>>> >>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>> catching that one. >>>> >>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>> >>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>> >>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>> >>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ >>>>> - can >>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for the >>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>> >>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>>>> >>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>> Companion CD? >>>>> >>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>> >>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>> >>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>> architectural >>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>> around supporting >>>>> them? >>>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-arc mailing list >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org From margot.miller@sun.com Mon May 18 16:35:23 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4INZMMa014789 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 16:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4INZHL5015057; Tue, 19 May 2009 00:35:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJV00D075ISUJ00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 16:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.63]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJV00B7J5IRDD40@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 18 May 2009 16:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.146.226.220] (donald3.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.226.220]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4INZEWh962015; Mon, 18 May 2009 16:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:36:14 -0700 From: Margot Miller Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: LSARC-ext@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) Status: RO Content-Length: 3983 Abhijit, What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface stability be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these libraries are truly private? -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project private glib libraries | |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version 2.14.4 Thanks Margot On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: > All, > > Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. > > Thanks, > > John > > John Fischer wrote: >> All, >> >> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer for >> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> John Fischer wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team >>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome >>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will restart >>> the timer appropriately. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>> Alan/John, >>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the >>>> one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>> >>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded >>>> gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to >>>> check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a >>>> common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Abhijit >>>> >>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>> Alan, >>>>> >>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>>> catching that one. >>>>> >>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>> >>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for >>>>>> the >>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>> >>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>>>>> >>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>>> Companion CD? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>>> >>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>> architectural >>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>>> around supporting >>>>>> them? >>>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org From Brian.Cameron@sun.com Tue May 19 13:07:05 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4JK74BL022914 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4JK73s2055093 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJW00L0BQJRUA00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJW005XBQJPSTE0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4JK71wN003252 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 20:07:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KJW00800PI35H00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:07:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] ([unknown] [187.152.24.213]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KJW0027OQJABF60@mail-amer.sun.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 14:06:48 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:06:48 -0500 From: Brian Cameron Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> Sender: Brian.Cameron@sun.com To: Margot Miller Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Message-id: <4A131158.40404@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090505) Status: RO Content-Length: 4821 Margot: > What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib > 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version > 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface stability > be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these > libraries are truly private? Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be used. It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of these GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be possible to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? Brian > -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ > > |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project private > glib libraries | > |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version > 2.14.4 > > Thanks > Margot > > > On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >> All, >> >> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> John Fischer wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer for >>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> John Fischer wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team >>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome >>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will restart >>>> the timer appropriately. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>> Alan/John, >>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the >>>>> one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>> >>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded >>>>> gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to >>>>> check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a >>>>> common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Abhijit >>>>> >>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Alan, >>>>>> >>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>>>> Companion CD? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they can be >>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>>>> around supporting >>>>>>> them? >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-arc mailing list >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue May 19 13:30:26 2009 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4JKUQxj023109 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4JKUNFN029452 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJW0010DRMQ0W00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJW00N1ORMQ5110@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4JKUQAt005284 for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 20:30:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KJW00000RFNXQ00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.8] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KJW00BQLRMFT9B0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:16 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:28:58 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A131158.40404@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Brian Cameron Cc: Margot Miller , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com, Abhijit Nath Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> <4A131158.40404@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 5387 Brian, In talking with Parthasarathi and Abhijit they understand the desire by Java to have GStreamer in Solaris 10. However, they do not want to end up pulling in a bunch of support issues by making them a public interface. With that said I am sure that they would be willing to sign a contract when Java comes to the committee to us the interface. Thanks, John Brian Cameron wrote: > > Margot: > >> What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib >> 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version >> 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface stability >> be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these >> libraries are truly private? > > Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. > > GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for > backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. > > It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that > will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would > obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be used. > > It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of these > GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be possible > to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? > > Brian > > >> -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ >> >> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project private >> glib libraries | >> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version >> 2.14.4 >> Thanks >> Margot >> >> >> On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> John Fischer wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer for >>>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project team >>>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the Gnome >>>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will >>>>> restart >>>>> the timer appropriately. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>>> Alan/John, >>>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the >>>>>> one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need upgraded >>>>>> gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a process to >>>>>> check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded libraires in a >>>>>> common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Abhijit >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada to a >>>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a separate >>>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt would be >>>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved >>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>>>>> Companion CD? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they >>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>>>>> around supporting >>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opensolaris-arc mailing list >> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org > From Abhijit.Nath@sun.com Wed May 20 03:02:37 2009 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4KA2ad3001084 for ; Wed, 20 May 2009 03:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4KA2X8U062730 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 20 May 2009 04:02:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KJX00L0PT8CPY00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 20 May 2009 03:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KJX008N5T8A0550@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 20 May 2009 03:02:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4KA2Y9l020245 for ; Wed, 20 May 2009 10:02:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KJX00K00T486900@mail-apac.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 20 May 2009 18:02:34 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [129.156.235.234] ([unknown] [129.156.235.234]) by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KJX0011AT84RTG0@mail-apac.sun.com>; Wed, 20 May 2009 18:02:34 +0800 (SGT) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:33:21 +0530 From: abhijit Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> Sender: Abhijit.Nath@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: Brian Cameron , Margot Miller , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <4A13D569.405@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> <4A131158.40404@sun.com> <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081023) Status: RO Content-Length: 5838 Brian, John is perfectly correct. We really don't have any problem if GStreamer use gnome private libraries. At this moment, it is difficult to make the new gnome libraries as public. Abhijit John Fischer wrote: > Brian, > > In talking with Parthasarathi and Abhijit they understand the desire by > Java to have GStreamer in Solaris 10. However, they do not want to end > up pulling in a bunch of support issues by making them a public > interface. With that said I am sure that they would be willing to sign > a contract when Java comes to the committee to us the interface. > > Thanks, > > John > > Brian Cameron wrote: >> >> Margot: >> >>> What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib >>> 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version >>> 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface stability >>> be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these >>> libraries are truly private? >> >> Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. >> >> GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for >> backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. >> >> It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that >> will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would >> obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be used. >> >> It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of these >> GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be possible >> to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? >> >> Brian >> >> >>> -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ >>> >>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project >>> private glib libraries | >>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version >>> 2.14.4 Thanks >>> Margot >>> >>> >>> On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer >>>>> for >>>>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project >>>>>> team >>>>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the >>>>>> Gnome >>>>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will >>>>>> restart >>>>>> the timer appropriately. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>>>> Alan/John, >>>>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the >>>>>>> one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and >>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need >>>>>>> upgraded gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a >>>>>>> process to check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded >>>>>>> libraires in a common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Abhijit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada >>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a >>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt >>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved >>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in >>>>>>>>>> run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>>>>>> Companion CD? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they >>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>>>>>> around supporting >>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >> From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue May 26 09:59:35 2009 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4QGxZIw016721 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4QGxXCd021020 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KK90010VGJ99B00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KK900F6NGJ8FDE0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4QGxSnd007258 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 16:59:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KK900200FQ97P00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 10:59:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.5] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KK900B4YGJ2M800@mail-amer.sun.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:59:27 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:58:03 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A13D569.405@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: abhijit Cc: Brian Cameron , Margot Miller , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4A1C1F9B.8000702@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> <4A131158.40404@sun.com> <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> <4A13D569.405@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 6127 All, With all the issues having been answered I am still waiting a +1. Thanks, John abhijit wrote: > Brian, > John is perfectly correct. We really don't have any problem if > GStreamer use gnome private libraries. > At this moment, it is difficult to make the new gnome libraries as public. > > Abhijit > > John Fischer wrote: >> Brian, >> >> In talking with Parthasarathi and Abhijit they understand the desire by >> Java to have GStreamer in Solaris 10. However, they do not want to end >> up pulling in a bunch of support issues by making them a public >> interface. With that said I am sure that they would be willing to sign >> a contract when Java comes to the committee to us the interface. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Brian Cameron wrote: >>> >>> Margot: >>> >>>> What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib >>>> 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version >>>> 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface stability >>>> be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these >>>> libraries are truly private? >>> >>> Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. >>> >>> GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for >>> backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. >>> >>> It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that >>> will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would >>> obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be used. >>> >>> It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of these >>> GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be possible >>> to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>>> -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ >>>> >>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project >>>> private glib libraries | >>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version >>>> 2.14.4 Thanks >>>> Margot >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the timer >>>>>> for >>>>>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the project >>>>>>> team >>>>>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of the >>>>>>> Gnome >>>>>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will >>>>>>> restart >>>>>>> the timer appropriately. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>>>>> Alan/John, >>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify the >>>>>>>> one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and >>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need >>>>>>>> upgraded gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a >>>>>>>> process to check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded >>>>>>>> libraires in a common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Abhijit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks for >>>>>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from Nevada >>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of Solaris. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a >>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt >>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is reserved >>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in >>>>>>>>>>> run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from the >>>>>>>>>> Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way they >>>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in /usr/lib ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource issue >>>>>>>>>> around supporting >>>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>> > From margot.miller@sun.com Tue May 26 10:09:57 2009 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4QH9ud9017215 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4QH9kuX003332; Tue, 26 May 2009 18:09:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KK900329H0FKE00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.17.59]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KK900K5NH0F2R90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.250.88] (punchin-client-10-7-250-88.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.250.88]) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4QH9ohB713994; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:09:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:09:49 -0700 From: Margot Miller Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A1C1F9B.8000702@sun.com> To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: abhijit , Brian Cameron , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <4A1C225D.9010107@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> <4A131158.40404@sun.com> <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> <4A13D569.405@sun.com> <4A1C1F9B.8000702@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081023) Status: RO Content-Length: 6439 +1 Thanks Margot John Fischer wrote: > All, > > With all the issues having been answered I am still waiting a +1. > > Thanks, > > John > > > abhijit wrote: >> Brian, >> John is perfectly correct. We really don't have any problem if >> GStreamer use gnome private libraries. >> At this moment, it is difficult to make the new gnome libraries as >> public. >> >> Abhijit >> >> John Fischer wrote: >>> Brian, >>> >>> In talking with Parthasarathi and Abhijit they understand the desire by >>> Java to have GStreamer in Solaris 10. However, they do not want to end >>> up pulling in a bunch of support issues by making them a public >>> interface. With that said I am sure that they would be willing to sign >>> a contract when Java comes to the committee to us the interface. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >>> Brian Cameron wrote: >>>> >>>> Margot: >>>> >>>>> What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib >>>>> 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version >>>>> 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface >>>>> stability >>>>> be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these >>>>> libraries are truly private? >>>> >>>> Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. >>>> >>>> GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for >>>> backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. >>>> >>>> It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that >>>> will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would >>>> obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be >>>> used. >>>> >>>> It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of >>>> these >>>> GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be >>>> possible >>>> to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ >>>>> >>>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project >>>>> private glib libraries | >>>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version >>>>> 2.14.4 Thanks >>>>> Margot >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the >>>>>>> timer for >>>>>>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the >>>>>>>> project team >>>>>>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of >>>>>>>> the Gnome >>>>>>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will >>>>>>>> restart >>>>>>>> the timer appropriately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alan/John, >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>>>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>>>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify >>>>>>>>> the one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and >>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need >>>>>>>>> upgraded gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a >>>>>>>>> process to check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded >>>>>>>>> libraires in a common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Abhijit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from >>>>>>>>>>>> Nevada to a >>>>>>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of >>>>>>>>>>>> Solaris. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a >>>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt >>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is >>>>>>>>>>> reserved for the >>>>>>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, >>>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in >>>>>>>>>>>> run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from >>>>>>>>>>> the Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way >>>>>>>>>>> they can be >>>>>>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in >>>>>>>>>>> /usr/lib ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource >>>>>>>>>>> issue around supporting >>>>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>> >> From John.Fischer@sun.com Tue May 26 10:41:38 2009 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4QHfb40017750 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n4QHfSVO004850 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:LSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 27 May 2009 01:41:36 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0KK900915IHBCX00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 11:41:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0KK900552IHB8670@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 11:41:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n4QHfZKJ001532 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 17:41:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) id <0KK900000GL1DP00@mail-amer.sun.com> for LSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT LSARC-ext@sun.com); Tue, 26 May 2009 11:41:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.10.5] ([unknown] [76.20.56.47]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 64bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KK9001ZVIGU9Q50@mail-amer.sun.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 11:41:19 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:39:55 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: LSARC/2009/250 - Firefox 3.0.x on Solaris 10 In-reply-to: <4A1C225D.9010107@sun.com> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: Margot Miller Cc: abhijit , Brian Cameron , Parthasarathi.Susarla@sun.com, LSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <4A1C296B.3050402@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <49EE4821.7020605@sun.com> <49EE4AE3.2010609@sun.com> <49EE5252.2040609@sun.com> <49EEA14D.2020108@Sun.COM> <49F6366B.6080006@sun.com> <4A0AD0D3.8030707@sun.com> <4A0AFCB2.4090507@sun.com> <4A11F0EE.20303@sun.com> <4A131158.40404@sun.com> <4A13168A.30302@sun.com> <4A13D569.405@sun.com> <4A1C1F9B.8000702@sun.com> <4A1C225D.9010107@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) Status: RO Content-Length: 6792 All, Having received the required +1 and all issues resolved I am closing this fast track as approved. Thanks, John Margot Miller wrote: > +1 > > Thanks > Margot > > > John Fischer wrote: >> All, >> >> With all the issues having been answered I am still waiting a +1. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> abhijit wrote: >>> Brian, >>> John is perfectly correct. We really don't have any problem if >>> GStreamer use gnome private libraries. >>> At this moment, it is difficult to make the new gnome libraries as >>> public. >>> >>> Abhijit >>> >>> John Fischer wrote: >>>> Brian, >>>> >>>> In talking with Parthasarathi and Abhijit they understand the desire by >>>> Java to have GStreamer in Solaris 10. However, they do not want to end >>>> up pulling in a bunch of support issues by making them a public >>>> interface. With that said I am sure that they would be willing to sign >>>> a contract when Java comes to the committee to us the interface. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Brian Cameron wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Margot: >>>>> >>>>>> What was the resolution to Brian Cameron's GSteamer needing GLib >>>>>> 2.12 or newer? It looks like this project is integrating version >>>>>> 2.14.4. Can GStreamer use that? If so, should the interface >>>>>> stability >>>>>> be consolidation private? Or, has it been determined that all these >>>>>> libraries are truly private? >>>>> >>>>> Just to reiterate what I said in the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> GLib 2.14.4 (or any version 2.12 or later) would be fine for >>>>> backporting GStreamer 0.10 to Solaris 10. >>>>> >>>>> It still is not clear if backporting GStreamer 0.10 is something that >>>>> will be done, but if the decision is made to do so, then it would >>>>> obviously make things easier if this GLib 2.14.4 library could be >>>>> used. >>>>> >>>>> It would be good to clarify what the interface stability level of >>>>> these >>>>> GNOME base libraries will be. If they are private, will it be >>>>> possible >>>>> to get a contract to use them for GStreamer 0.10 if needed? >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------+------------------+---------------------------------+ >>>>>> >>>>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/glib-2.0 | Project private | Project >>>>>> private glib libraries | >>>>>> |/usr/lib/gnome-private/libglib*.so| | version >>>>>> 2.14.4 Thanks >>>>>> Margot >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/13/09 10:00, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, I have set the timer for Friday, May 15th, 2009, COB PST. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Attached please find the updated proposal. I have reset the >>>>>>>> timer for >>>>>>>> Wednesday May 20th, 2009. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am putting this case into need spec status to allow the >>>>>>>>> project team >>>>>>>>> to produce a new specification that addresses the sharing of >>>>>>>>> the Gnome >>>>>>>>> libraries and installation locations. Once this is done I will >>>>>>>>> restart >>>>>>>>> the timer appropriately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Abhijit Nath wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alan/John, >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mistake. We'll shift all the private libraries/ >>>>>>>>>> Firefox 3.0.x libraries in "/opt/firefox3". >>>>>>>>>> You are also correct about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We'll modify >>>>>>>>>> the one pager and incorporate LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 and >>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some other frameworks' up-prive (eg GStreamer) also need >>>>>>>>>> upgraded gnome libraries( Refer Brian's mail). So we are in a >>>>>>>>>> process to check the feasibility of keeping all the upgraded >>>>>>>>>> libraires in a common place. We'll revert back asap. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Abhijit >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 04/22/09 04:40, John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alan, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I totally missed the /opt/firefox and /opt/sfw issue. Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> catching that one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll let the project team address these issues. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> John Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> This project proposes to back port Firefox 3.0.x from >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevada to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Solaris 10 Update release which is a Patch release of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Solaris. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it integrating into the update release or shipping as a >>>>>>>>>>>> separate >>>>>>>>>>>> web download running on top of the update release? (/opt >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong for the integrated case, right for the unbundled case). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this intended to replace or supplement Firefox 2.x? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one-pager references both /opt/firefox3 & >>>>>>>>>>>> /opt/sfw/lib/firefox/ - can >>>>>>>>>>>> we assume /opt/firefox3 is correct since /opt/sfw is >>>>>>>>>>>> reserved for the >>>>>>>>>>>> Solaris Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All the plugins are spawned by firefox-bin. So, >>>>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH >>>>>>>>>>>>> environment variable will be set to /opt/sfw/lib in >>>>>>>>>>>>> run-mozilla.sh >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This also seems incorrect - should this refer to the >>>>>>>>>>>> /opt/firefox3/lib >>>>>>>>>>>> directory or are you importing/depending on libraries from >>>>>>>>>>>> the Companion CD? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Also, in the unavoidable cases in which you must use >>>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH-type >>>>>>>>>>>> variables, you should always use LD_LIBRARY_PATH_32 or >>>>>>>>>>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH_64 >>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid breaking programs of the other wordsize.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are the library upgrades incompatible? Is there no way >>>>>>>>>>>> they can be >>>>>>>>>>>> shipped as updates to the existing public libraries in >>>>>>>>>>>> /usr/lib ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the brand new libraries, like cairo & dbus, is there any >>>>>>>>>>>> architectural >>>>>>>>>>>> reason they must be private, or is this just a resource >>>>>>>>>>>> issue around supporting >>>>>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> opensolaris-arc mailing list >>>>>> opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org >>>>> >>> >