[sldev] Webkit (Re: CMake preview available - please try it out!)

[Sam Kolb (Samuel Linden)]

I think it is important to distinguish between LLMozlib and Mozilla 
here.   I am not aware of our frustrations with LLMozlib (the wrapper to 
Mozilla).  We have been frustrated with Mozilla.

-Sam

Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On 2/1/08 2:44 PM, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 08:58 +0000, Robin Cornelius wrote:
>>  
>>> Well that would be cool to have the Lindens run a repository save my
>>> bandwidth. There are subtitle issues though. llmozlib is a PITA. I try
>>> to package it as a separate shared library, this is fine on Debian but
>>> some Ubuntus have a broken firefox build and its not possible to
>>> install xulrunner-dev and firefox as theres a conflict. I suppose the
>>> answer here is to to what the Lindens do now and roll llmozlib with
>>> the slviewer-bin then there is no such dependency.
>>> This would be fine for a linden release and probably be benifical if
>>> different RC's, betas etc possibly use different llmozlibs?
>>>     
>>
>> llmozlib is an utter nightmare and is largely the reason my Fedora
>> packaging efforts are completely stalled at this point. I'm really not
>> interested in maintaining a mozilla fork, and I doubt adding another
>> mozilla fork to Fedora will go over well with the Fedora powers that be.
>>
>> Linking with standard xulrunner would be acceptable, but it doesn't
>> sound like LL is interested in officially maintaining this option. Which
>> makes me not want to be stuck trying to maintain it myself.
>>   
>
> We've been pretty frustrated with llmozlib as well, to be honest, and 
> we're evaluating alternatives.  One option that we're considering is 
> Webkit:
> http://webkit.org/
>
> It's one of many, many things on our plate, and as a result, hasn't 
> gotten a thorough look, though Tofu has done quite a bit of 
> tinkering.  We know that it's generally easier to build and get going 
> with than Mozilla, and we understand that rendering to a surface 
> potentially will work better with it, and that the prognosis is much 
> better that we wouldn't need a funky forked version of the code.  
> However, we could probably use some help from someone really, really 
> frustrated with Mozilla to help us out with a deeper investigation.  
> Any volunteers?
>
> Rob
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080201/8c88239d/attachment.htm