Help! Summarizing the xulrunner situation in OLPC

Daniel Drake dsd at
Wed Jul 16 13:00:36 EDT 2008

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:43 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> 3. These dependencies will be coming back someday in the upstream, when 
> Mozilla makes these hard dependencies instead of soft dependencies.

Are you saying that, in future, it will not be possible to compile a
xulrunner without printing support? What about the libgnome/gnomevfs

> If this analysis is correct, it forces us to answer some key questions.
> 1. Space.  What are the real space requirements for the xulrunner 
> dependencies?  Do we have any hard numbers that we can analyze?  Is it 
> reasonable to carry all of the dependencies along in OLPC?  How were the 
> decisions made to leave out certain pieces of the xulrunner dependency 
> chain, and can those decisions be revisited?

So far, I don't think we've been considering space footprints for
specific packages. Instead, we have been considering our OS build as a
whole: we want to limit it to 300mb, and our F9 builds are currently
45mb overweight.

I recently modified OLPC-3 xulrunner to remove dependencies on libgnome
and gnomevfs2. Once Dennis has had a chance to review my work to remove
libgnome deps from other packages too, a huge dependency chain
(including metacity, icon themes, and plenty more) will fall out of the
build. Therefore it is quite important that OLPC's xulrunner continues
to avoid it's dependency on libgnome.


More information about the Devel mailing list