Bug#660487: xulrunner-dev: instant segfault in startup (related to jemalloc)

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678977#c46
>>
>> mike hi, it looks like this has been solved, and i leave it in your
>> capable hands to sort out xulrunner - the question remaining is: what
>> to do now about hulahop?  i've been asked to help get hulahop into a
>> working state, but xulrunner 10 is so badly borked that that's
>> impossible.
>
> Without specifics, there's not much I can do.

 that bugreport (#678977) contains the patches and various
compile-time arguments that are needed to fix that _one_ bug.

 the other one is something that's still under investigation, which
again looks to me to be memory corruption (a function which returns
pointers to a list of windows returns a pointer with a value of
0x100000: it's too coincidental a value to be correct).


>> that would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact that
>> xulrunner-dev has now overwritten and replaced xulrunner-9-dev, making
>> it impossible to now compile up python-hulahop.
>
> We can't indefinitely keep multiple versions of xulrunner in the
> archive We don't scale that much.

 actually, you already have four!  xulrunner 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 9.0 and 10.0.2

 but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev
libraries.  hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but
essentially what i need to do is to create a package
python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9

 why?

 because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul".

 that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from?
from the -dev package.  what that *should* be is this:

 pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul

 but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_
xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're
f****d, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named.


> The good news for you is that
> xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released
> in wheezy.

 argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above.
not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's
xulrunner-10 which is severely borked.

 hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked?

 i'll test that out.

 l.