2003-03-12 - Minutes of mozilla.org staff meeting
Gervase Markham
----------------------------------------
Present: Asa, Mitchell, Gerv, Dan, Seth, Myk.
*1.3*
- Will probably need to do a 1.3.1 - XPInstall for Mac doesn't exist in
1.3 (beta or final) - been broken for a long time.
- Sean and Seth have identified the areas of concern. We speculate a
couple of weeks before a potential 1.3.1. The XPInstall issue could be
fixed sooner.
- There's a leak in mail/news which hits some people and not others.
*1.4*
- We need to make sure people know to land risky work early, otherwise
it won't get in.
- Asa/drivers to publicise the plan as soon as 1.3 is out of the way.
*Change of compiler and OS on Linux*
- dmose and others would like to make this change in 1.4 alpha.
- Need to decide exactly what to change to.
- dmose says 7.1, cls/bbaetz/granrose says 7.3.
- Run a poll at MozillaZine to find out RH version?
- Or see talkback reports for OS breakdown.
*Roadmap update*
- From 5-5-3 split in weeks (alpha-beta-final) to 6-4-3. More heavy
lifting time in alpha, so we can be more strict for beta.
*Publicising 1.4 plans*
- Asa to send holding mail to the guy who enquired
- Asa to post to Seamonkey
*Distributing Mozilla to developing countries on CD*
- Gerv to reply saying that the license gives you the right to do this.
- If you are taking the mozilla.org distribution and not changing
anything, you need to add the notice to say where people can get a
copy.
*"Why use Mozilla" docs from MozillaU*
- Get Marcia to do index page?
- Due by the weekend
- Mitchell's deadline: next Wednesday.
- Asa to circulate the individual pages to staff.
Gerv
Grey Hodge / jesus X
> *Change of compiler and OS on Linux*
> - Need to decide exactly what to change to.
Go from Linux to BSD! ;)
> - dmose says 7.1, cls/bbaetz/granrose says 7.3.
> - Run a poll at MozillaZine to find out RH version?
Ooh, VERSION, OS VERSION, that's better. ;)
> *Publicising 1.4 plans*
> - Asa to send holding mail to the guy who enquired
1) s/Enquired/Inquired
2) what is "holding mail"?
> *Distributing Mozilla to developing countries on CD*
> - Gerv to reply saying that the license gives you the right to do this.
> - If you are taking the mozilla.org distribution and not changing
> anything, you need to add the notice to say where people can get a
> copy.
Why exactly would anyone think otherwise? I don't recall anything in the license
specifying exactly what formats one can and cannot use to distribute a Mozilla
incarnation. As for adding a notice, while a nice thing, why would not the
built-in Start page, and about: suffice?
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesus_x @ mozillanews.org ]
web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ]
insult [ As usual, you've been a real pantload. ]
warning [ Don't touch that! You might mutate your fingers. ]
Bradley Baetz
> - dmose says 7.1, cls/bbaetz/granrose says 7.3.
bbaetz actually says 'anything which gets us using the newer compiler'
7.1 is fine by me, as long as it actually works - gcc-3.2.1 claims to
require a newer libc
Bradley
Dennis Haney
Gervase> Mozilla Staff Meeting Minutes 2003-03-12
Gervase> ----------------------------------------
Gervase> *Change of compiler and OS on Linux*
Gervase> - dmose says 7.1, cls/bbaetz/granrose says 7.3.
Why even Redhat? 7.x ships with a broken compiler, which produces
(C++) code that is completly useless on anything but on the exact
version of Redhat it was compiled on, because it was based on a
pre-alpha release of gcc 3. Redhat 8.0 ships with a proper compiler
(gcc 3.2), but then ships with a pre-release of libc, but at least
other people can use code compiled on a redhat 8 as long as they have
a new enough libc, but most people dont.
My recommendation would be to use some distribution that uses the good
(now) old libc 2.2 and the gcc-3.2(.2) compiler.
gcc 3.2 also has the benifit that the C++ ABI is compatible with other
compilers[1], thus vendors (sun java, macromedia flash etc.) that want
to create plugins for mozilla are no longer tied to using gcc.
Also the change to gcc 3.2 will save you from having to change
compiler once more within a relatively short period of time to match
all distributions (with gcc 3.2) that has been shipped within the last
6 months, when they become the standard.
And with the change of compiler (whatever the change is to) also
change default optimization level to -O2 which is what most
people/distributions use, and thus the most tested.
[1] except some few places, but thats what -Wabi is for
--
Dennis
use Inline C => qq{void p(char*g){
printf("Just Another %s Hacker\n",g);}};p("Perl");
Boris Zbarsky
> Why even Redhat? 7.x ships with a broken compiler
No one is planning to use that compiler. See the discussion in
n.p.m.unix ;)
Gervase Markham
>>*Publicising 1.4 plans*
>>- Asa to send holding mail to the guy who enquired
>
> 1) s/Enquired/Inquired
It's a legitimate variant spelling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inquired
> 2) what is "holding mail"?
Mail saying "We're on it, and will get back to you.
>>*Distributing Mozilla to developing countries on CD*
>>- Gerv to reply saying that the license gives you the right to do this.
>>- If you are taking the mozilla.org distribution and not changing
>> anything, you need to add the notice to say where people can get a
>> copy.
>
> Why exactly would anyone think otherwise?
No idea; but people often ask to be sure.
Gerv
Grey Hodge / jesus X
> It's a legitimate variant spelling.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inquired
Leave it to you Brits to ruin a perfectly good language like English. ;)