[5907] in testers
Re: Requesting solaris patches for 9.3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Cattey)
Fri Jun 4 17:33:27 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58L.0406041630200.2162@quiche-lorraine.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <CF1EBB26-B66E-11D8-B454-000A9596D0BC@mit.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: testers@mit.edu, Robert A Basch <rbasch@mit.edu>
From: William Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 17:33:24 -0400
To: Ken T Takusagawa <kenta@mit.edu>
It looks like Mozilla needs to quit demanding patches for language
support when the underlying language support is not present or used.
-wdc
On Jun 4, 2004, at 4:51 PM, Ken T Takusagawa wrote:
> Unfortunately all I can quickly provide is
>
> http://www.mit.edu/~kenta/Screenshot-mozillapatch.png
>
> which is the friendly popup from recent prebuilt Solaris
> binaries.
>
> The lack of these patches do not cause Mozilla to
> immediately crash.
>
> For 112785-34 I did a little digging in CVS, and the only
> comment I could find is "bring Solaris patchchecker
> current".
>
> http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla/xpfe/bootstrap/
> init.d/moz_patch_checker.dtksh&rev=1.3
>
> --ken
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Robert A Basch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 02:07, Ken T Takusagawa wrote:
>>> I maintain mozilla-beta in the mozilla locker. I'd like to
>>> request that the following Solaris patches be included in
>>> 9.3 (new versions of mozilla seem to want them):
>>>
>>> 113902-03
>>> 114276-02
>>> 114641-02
>>
>> These seem to be patches to packages containing the Asian iconv
>> modules for UTF-8, and Arabic fonts, none of which we currently
>> have in the release. The corresponding packages (in /install/cdrom)
>> seem to include these patch revisions, so, if you really need these,
>> we should only have to add the packages to the release. Can you
>> please be more specific about your needs here?
>>
>>> 112785-34
>>
>> We currently have 112785-33 in the release (the latest rev of this
>> patch is 35). Is there a specific bug you are encountering that
>> is fixed in the later rev of the patch?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
