To note: this was one of the reasons why QA didn't have a working build for Leo for several months. We had to get some checks in place amongst other issues. It's also why the version check is in place in the first place.
On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Fabrice Desré <fabr...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 03/25/2015 01:39 PM, Dave Huseby wrote: > >> Yes, I think I wasn't clear. I said "RIL interface" referring to that >> set of xpcom components. >> >> Do the vendors customize the interfaces and dependencies between gecko >> and their xpcom components? Do they modify our code to call into >> their custom set of interfaces? > > No. > >> Maybe we should talk to our vendor partners and see if we can >> standardize/stabilize the interfaces/dependencies in such a way that >> they don't feel the need to customize them...they make sure it stays >> that way by putting it in the contract. >> >> If we can do that, then they can provide custom implementations that >> our "stock" gecko uses and we'd take back control over gecko. We'd be >> able to update gecko independent of their shared library of RIL >> interface xpcom objects. > > Yes the ril team works closely with partners. The technical issue is > that a binary xpcom that has been built against gecko version X can't be > loaded by gecko version Y because we don't guarantee this will work (and > I tested bypassing the version check, this crashed nicely afterward). > > Fabrice > -- > Fabrice Desré > b2g team > Mozilla Corporation > _______________________________________________ > dev-b2g mailing list > dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
