| |||||||||||||
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarksFedora, Mozilla, and trademarksPosted Apr 29, 2010 4:04 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627)In reply to: Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks by roc Parent article: Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks
I am informed that we have libffi changes that need to go upstream before we can use "system libffi". That is being worked on. Also, someone has submitted system-libffi patches and they are being reviewed and will be merged. So the libffi problem, at least, is being resolved.
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 5:51 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Shouldn't you be getting these changes merged upstream first and once they have been merged and released, then start depending on the version that includes them?
Autoconf is for this exact needs... Posted Apr 29, 2010 6:15 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
These two processes can go in any order. Correctly written autoconf will just refuse to use library without changes so till upstream will include fix the autoconf will refuse all upstream releases.
But of course it's good idea to wait till upstream includes the patch at least in VCS: this will mean there WILL be supported release in the future...
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 8:05 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Getting changes merged upstream first would slow down development a lot.
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 11:49 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Fedora has a strong policy of 'upstream first' and, to say the least, it doesn't generally get people complaining that the pace of change is too slow.
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 23:48 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Fedora is not building a large application on top of those upstream libraries that needs features added to those libraries.
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 13:51 UTC (Thu) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link] Perhaps it would help if you posted a message like "our project is hurting and we need a release with this patch NOW NOW NOW" to their bug tracker.
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted May 2, 2010 3:31 UTC (Sun) by jwalden (guest, #41159) [Link]
Someone please correct me quickly if I'm wrong, but my understanding -- just from hearing people talking about it passing over lunch, or something like that, and this is the haze of a memory, so maybe I didn't hear correctly -- is that libffi isn't sufficiently strongly maintained to permit this.
I would also note (conveniently, one might say, but I believe accurately) that the browser market is a uniquely competitive one, as far as distribution-packaged software goes. What other distro package sees such widespread use, where time-to-market matters as much? (I'm speaking to the benefits of quick iteration through in-tree, lightly-patched third-party code now, not to the backport approval process.) I just skimmed my Applications menu in Fedora, and I can't see anything where new functionality and features have such high demand as for browsers.
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted May 3, 2010 20:12 UTC (Mon) by atgreen (guest, #33284) [Link]
I'm the upstream libffi author/maintainer.
Dan Witte, from Mozilla, has been terrific about feeding back libffi patches over the past few months. But from what I recall they mostly have to do with building libffi on Windows and OS/2. I don't remember anything that would prevent them from using the system libffi on Linux.
In any case, this sudden batch of contributions from Dan and Mozilla is appreciated.
Anthony Green
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted May 3, 2010 22:19 UTC (Mon) by jwalden (guest, #41159) [Link]
Ah, yeah, that's what I actually heard -- Windows support being the big thing. As I said, the memory was quite hazy. :-)
Fedora, Mozilla, and trademarks Posted Apr 29, 2010 7:32 UTC (Thu) by glandium (subscriber, #46059) [Link]
> I am informed that we have libffi changes that need to go upstream before we can use "system libffi"
On the 1.9.2 branch, there are no upstream libffi changes required on linux to be able to use system libffi. Though one may wonder why js-ctypes is enabled on 1.9.2 at all, since it's only advertised for 1.9.3.
|
|||||||||||||