The mozilla port doesn't build the ChatZilla irc client by default. I'd like it to do so. Fix: here's a patch: I've tested this and it works.--qqTEA5YutTc4rxviYoR9et18VwAiLk7IDvR8eR7HNiveTAex Content-Type: text/plain; name="file.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="file.diff" --- Makefile.orig Thu Jan 3 18:06:16 2002 +++ Makefile Thu Jan 3 18:07:10 2002 @@ -56,7 +56,8 @@ --with-jpeg=${LOCALBASE} \ --with-png=${LOCALBASE} \ --with-mng=${LOCALBASE} \ - --with-pthreads + --with-pthreads \ + --with-extensions=default,irc CONFIGURE_ENV= BSD_PTHREAD_LIBS="${PTHREAD_LIBS}" \ CFLAGS="" CXXFLAGS="" \ MOZ_INTERNAL_LIBART_LGPL=1 How-To-Repeat: build and install the mozilla port
What about this patch instead to make ChatZilla! optional? Joe --- Makefile.orig Thu Jan 3 20:33:24 2002 +++ Makefile Thu Jan 3 20:32:59 2002 @@ -58,6 +58,11 @@ --with-png=${LOCALBASE} \ --with-mng=${LOCALBASE} \ --with-pthreads + +.if defined(WITH_CHATZILLA) +CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --with-extensions=default,irc +.endif + CONFIGURE_ENV= BSD_PTHREAD_LIBS="${PTHREAD_LIBS}" \ CFLAGS="" CXXFLAGS="" \ MOZ_INTERNAL_LIBART_LGPL=1
> >Description: > The mozilla port doesn't build the ChatZilla irc client by default. I'd like it to do so. > >How-To-Repeat: > build and install the mozilla port > >Fix: > here's a patch: I don't think it should build this by default. Maybe an MOZILLA_WITH_IRC knob, then I'd agree. -- David W. Chapman Jr. dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. <www.inethouston.net> dwcjr@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer <www.FreeBSD.org>
Thats fine with me, I can add it to my pkgtools.conf file to always pass that flag, so its not big deal. However, according to the mozilla developers, chatzilla is nothing more than about 78k of JavaScript and XUL. From my experience, it doesn't add a great deal of time to the build or the on disk or in memory images. Whats your reasoning behind making it optional? Steve On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 07:38:40PM -0600, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > >Description: > > The mozilla port doesn't build the ChatZilla irc client by default. I'd like it to do so. > > >How-To-Repeat: > > build and install the mozilla port > > >Fix: > > here's a patch: > I don't think it should build this by default. Maybe an > MOZILLA_WITH_IRC knob, then I'd agree. > > -- > David W. Chapman Jr. > dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. <www.inethouston.net> > dwcjr@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer <www.FreeBSD.org> -- The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction makes sense. -- Tom Clancy
> Thats fine with me, I can add it to my pkgtools.conf file to always pass that > flag, so its not big deal. However, according to the mozilla developers, > chatzilla is nothing more than about 78k of JavaScript and XUL. From my > experience, it doesn't add a great deal of time to the build or the on disk or > in memory images. Whats your reasoning behind making it optional? > I wasn't aware that it was that small. Eventhough some people still might want it an option instead of default, since its not a default in the first place. Actually you could add it to your /etc/make.conf so that anytime you build it from wherever it would use those knobs.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports->gnome Over to maintainers
Ok, thanks for the info on make.conf. Whats the verdict on this change? Default to building ChatZilla, or make it a knob? Either way is fine with me, but why not at least give it a try as a default and if its a problem or people complain, then make it a knob? Thanks, Steve On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 07:49:14PM -0600, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > Thats fine with me, I can add it to my pkgtools.conf file to always pass > that > > flag, so its not big deal. However, according to the mozilla developers, > > chatzilla is nothing more than about 78k of JavaScript and XUL. From my > > experience, it doesn't add a great deal of time to the build or the on > disk or > > in memory images. Whats your reasoning behind making it optional? > > > I wasn't aware that it was that small. Eventhough some people still might > want it an option instead of default, since its not a default in the first > place. Actually you could add it to your /etc/make.conf so that anytime you > build it from wherever it would use those knobs. > -- The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction makes sense. -- Tom Clancy
I believe someone already submitted a patch for the knob, but we'll leave it to the maintainer to decide which. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wills" <steve@stevenwills.com> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:44 PM Subject: Re: ports/33521: mozilla port doesn't build irc client ChatZilla > Ok, thanks for the info on make.conf. Whats the verdict on this change? > Default to building ChatZilla, or make it a knob? Either way is fine with me, > but why not at least give it a try as a default and if its a problem or people > complain, then make it a knob? > > Thanks, > Steve > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 07:49:14PM -0600, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > Thats fine with me, I can add it to my pkgtools.conf file to always pass > > that > > > flag, so its not big deal. However, according to the mozilla developers, > > > chatzilla is nothing more than about 78k of JavaScript and XUL. From my > > > experience, it doesn't add a great deal of time to the build or the on > > disk or > > > in memory images. Whats your reasoning behind making it optional? > > > > > I wasn't aware that it was that small. Eventhough some people still might > > want it an option instead of default, since its not a default in the first > > place. Actually you could add it to your /etc/make.conf so that anytime you > > build it from wherever it would use those knobs. > > > > -- > The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction makes sense. > -- Tom Clancy >
I was thinking about this and realized, the port should probably do what the default build does, and wondered why the default build doesn't build ChatZilla. I found out that the reason its not a default part of Mozilla is because the developer of ChatZilla wants it that way. So, I take it all back. :) Lets just make it a knob as was suggested. Steve On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:46:11PM -0600, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > I believe someone already submitted a patch for the knob, but we'll leave it > to the maintainer to decide which. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Wills" <steve@stevenwills.com> > To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> > Cc: <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: ports/33521: mozilla port doesn't build irc client ChatZilla > > > > Ok, thanks for the info on make.conf. Whats the verdict on this change? > > Default to building ChatZilla, or make it a knob? Either way is fine with > me, > > but why not at least give it a try as a default and if its a problem or > people > > complain, then make it a knob? > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 07:49:14PM -0600, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > > Thats fine with me, I can add it to my pkgtools.conf file to always > pass > > > that > > > > flag, so its not big deal. However, according to the mozilla > developers, > > > > chatzilla is nothing more than about 78k of JavaScript and XUL. From > my > > > > experience, it doesn't add a great deal of time to the build or the on > > > disk or > > > > in memory images. Whats your reasoning behind making it optional? > > > > > > > I wasn't aware that it was that small. Eventhough some people still > might > > > want it an option instead of default, since its not a default in the > first > > > place. Actually you could add it to your /etc/make.conf so that anytime > you > > > build it from wherever it would use those knobs. > > > > > > > -- > > The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction makes sense. > > -- Tom Clancy > > > -- The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction makes sense. -- Tom Clancy
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks to all who participated in discussion!