Re: xpcom/gtkmozembed modules flags for tinymail

[Alexander Sack <asac jwsdot com>]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 07:55:52PM +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:14 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > Hi Philip,
> 
> Hey Loïc, I applied all your patches to both Tinymail's trunk and the
> devel/pvanhoof/bs branch.
> 
> For future you can also post patches to our mailing list (if mailman
> blocks you because you're not subscribed, I'll add your From to the
> auto-accept list).
> 
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tinymail-devel-list
> 
> 
> >  Please find attached a patch for the AC_TNY_MOZ_CHECK m4 macro in
> >  tinymail.  It reworks some of the code of this macro, adds support for
> >  libxul-embedding (which is how the modules will be named with the next
> >  XUL Runner uploads to Ubuntu), and permits passing configure flags to
> >  set the xpcom/nspr/nss/gtkmozembed pkg-config modules.
> > 
> >  Alexander Sack, who guided Steve Kowalik and myself through this
> >  patching [1], also suggested that if you use a Mozilla engine >= 1.8,
> >  then nss/nspr should be pulled over xpcom, and shouldn't be checked
> >  directly.  I didn't succeed at implementing this suggestion from him as
> >  it seems libtinymail-camel uses nss/nspr directly.
> 
> This is correct. Tinymail uses NSS for its SSL implementation in 
> 
> 	libtinymail-camel/camel-lite/camel/configure.ac
> 
> You can opt for using OpenSSL in stead by passing --with-ssl=openssl to
> Tinymail's configure options. Doing that will make Tinymail not depend
> on NSS/NSPR, but instead on OpenSSL.

I think openssl would be a licensing issue because its incompatible
with GPL. Do you just use standard features that could easily make use
of gnutls?

> 
> We have a very interesting bug in NSS/NSPR by the way. The coredump of
> our tester regretfully revealed few information. Other than these
> stacktraces.

Do you have a testcase or steps on how to reproduce?

 - Alexander