On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:21:32AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 09:28:17AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > >> Hi Mike, > >> > >> Thanks for your help so far. I'm starting to get the impression that > >> modifying SWT-GTK to support xulrunner 1.9 is not a trivial amount of > >> work, and that it may be a better plan until upstream supports > >> xulrunner 1.9 explicitly. Since they'll be doing this work anyways, > >> it's a duplication of effort for me to be doing it now, and they'll > >> certainly do a better job of it than I will hacking and slashing code > >> together. > >> > >> How close do you think I am to fixing this? If you'd care look at it > >> yourself, the function that is failing is > >> > >> XPCOM.NS_NewLocalFile in Mozilla.create in Mozilla.java:332. > >> which calls > >> NS_1NewLocalFile in xpcom.cpp:94 > >> which calls > >> NS_NewLocalFile > >> which returns > >> Browser: org.eclipse.swt.SWTError: XPCOM error -1041039359 > >> which corresponds to NS_ERROR_NOT_INITIALIZED. > >> > >> I couldn't immediately see the relation between this function and > >> impl_init from mozilla-embed-single.cpp from epiphany-browser. > > > > Could you send your current patch against the last version of swt-gtk in > > unstable ? > > Hi Mike, > > I just uploaded SWT 3.4~rc3-1 which supports xulrunner 1.9. I usually > avoid packaging prereleases unless I have good reason, but this seems > like a good reason. Once it makes it through the NEW queue, this bug > will be closed.
Is it okay with the reverse dependencies ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
