Source Mage code commit list

[David Haley <khoralin AT gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:56 AM, George Sherwood <pilot AT beernabeer.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:16:46 -0500
> David Haley <khoralin AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have a problem reverting the change, working on it right now.
>> I did not however have a problem compiling Firefox beta. This might be
>> based on the point that you made below with regards to the mozconfig
>> not even looking for xulrunner.
>>
>> I am wondering why plugins are having problems. Could this be possible
>> that I had stable Firefox installed at one  point and than recast to
>> use unstable Firefox?
>>
>
> Maybe.  In particular, what plugins aren't work for you?  I am not a
> big user of plugins, but when I updated gnash the Firefox beta found
> the plugin and is using it with no problems.  It is more likely related
> to the plugin and how it installs vice xulrunner.  If it is only
> installing to /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins/ it is possible that a
> standalone Firefox will not see it.
>

The only plugin that I am using at the moment is flash. I have noticed
that there are a ton of symlinks involved here and I am not sure if
this is due to the fact that I had stable and went to devel as I had
mentioned above. To give you an idea I have listed the links below:

/usr/lib/firefox/plugins; points to
/usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins; which points to
/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/plugins

Are these symlinks remnants of the stable version that I had installed
before? should these lib files get cleaned up after a spell is removed
or do they hand around on purpose.

I suppose I could remove the symlink /usr/lib/firefox/plugins and just
make it a regular directory if need be and remove the xulrunner
directory. Then again, if something else needs xulrunner and it is
recast or resurrected would that overwrite and break the plugin(s)
that I might have installed at that time?

---
David