On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:40:26PM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/9/07, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 5/9/07, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> As for build dependencies, i would use libxul-dev, make the required > >> changes to configure.in to detect xulrunner-plugin and remove > >> MOZILLA_LIBS from the LDFLAGS. > > > >I had done exactly that before getting back to the package's > >current approach, except the last step. As a result, libxul-0d > >was pulled in as extra dependency. > > > >So, what I missed seemed to be the last step. > >But as you said below: > > > >> The latter would be temporary, until I > >> fix the xulrunner-plugin.pc file back (which has a dependency on > >> xulrunner-xpcom because of #413964, which was better to fix in xulrunner > >> than on its reverse dependencies). > > > >That means, we had better wait for that bug to be fixed before > >making further change.. > > Now that xulrunner 1.8.1.4-1 has arrived sid with the new > xulrunner-plugin.pc, I propose this patch which I had done > at first thought, but with irrelevant cosmetic changes removed, > including the plugin directory. > > It's now built with libxul-dev. libxul-0d is not pulled in now.
The patch looks good to me, though I'd recommend putting a versioned build dependency on libxul-dev. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
