Re: [blfs-book] [blfs] branch trunk updated: Seamonkey: Adjust ICU line break mapping fixing procedure.

On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 22:56 -0600, Douglas R. Reno wrote:
> On 11/5/25 10:51 PM, Xi Ruoyao ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing 
> List) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-11-06 at 03:25 +0000, Git Owner wrote:
> > > This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
> > > 
> > > git pushed a commit to branch trunk
> > > in repository blfs.
> > > 
> > > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/trunk by this push:
> > >       new 53348e907b Seamonkey: Adjust ICU line break mapping fixing
> > > procedure.
> > > 53348e907b is described below
> > > 
> > > commit 53348e907b14fdb02177d8d953019cb48f694ea7
> > > Author: Zeckmathederg <[email protected]>
> > > AuthorDate: Wed Nov 5 20:20:15 2025 -0700
> > > 
> > >      Seamonkey: Adjust ICU line break mapping fixing procedure.
> > >      
> > >      Currently, the for loop would break on ICU-77 systems as it's meant for
> > >      78.1. This essentially reverts the change in the Seamonkey update I
> > >      pushed to this repository where the 47 number got increased to 48 to
> > >      adapt for ICU-78. Instead, there is an additional sed and more
> > >      documentation, adding on that there is another line break mapping fix
> > >      for ICU-78 in particular. We want to make sure older ICU versions
> > >      installed can still get the newest Seamonkey while ensuring the newest
> > >      ICU can still be used. This setup is not ideal but is probably the best
> > >      solution without breaking the procedure for previous ICU versions.
> > The book never supports building a package with an older version if its
> > dependency.  It's also completely impractical to make it so.
> > 
> Can you suggest an alternate workaround for SA-12.4-030 in that case? 
> This was put in because a user that was using a 12.4 system attempted to 
> build Seamonkey-2.53.22 following SA-12.4-030, and ran into the problem 
> because the instructions in the book only worked for ICU 78.

IMO the SA should simply mention the instruction needs a change.  It
would be similar to for example SA 11.0-082 where we need to mention the
"--disable-raw" option.

That being said, the ultimate problem is the current approach of
security response is just unreliable and depending on luck as I've
discussed in
https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/blfs-dev/2025-02/msg00046.html.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <[email protected]>

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page