A cheap trick to reduce memory usage building a UXP application (such as Pale Moon)

[Moonchild]

Should the people in my group choose to speak out, they shall be allowed to do so.

That is the same kind of BS answer as "it will be explained in due time or it won't" (see: Open Usage Commons/Google). If you aren't going to substantiate your claims then I will just assume it's made up. That's fine too, but at least admit it, if so. I just don't have time to waste on these kinds of games.

I'll give you a week to think about your approach to us, and whether you are going to continue to veil yourself in unverifiable vagueries or going to be transparent for a change. If you decide on the former, then please be a dear and don't come back because you will no longer have a sounding board here.

[Kendo]

So what if it takes more than an hour to build PM.

We used to use Chromium and that took a way lot longer for a result that had less to offer!

[Moonchild]

So what if it takes more than an hour to build PM.

On most systems, it does

But yes, reducing the number of parallel compilation processes will reduce memory requirements. That will not, however, overcome issues with linking libxul (because it's huge).
The basic problem is simple: computer not having enough resources to build. This is why pre-built binaries exist. Can't compile it yourself? Then use what we already built for everyone.

[moonbat]

Can't see the need to build it on one's own unless it's an officially unsupported platform with nobody else providing 3rd party builds or if you have to make some ultra super niche code modifications that solve a specific problem that only you have and which can't be contributed back to the codebase.

Let alone the notion that open source means you should also be able to build it by yourself.

[adesh]

Off-topic:
"need" is not the word, "want" is.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:
Can't always get what you "want". And understandably, "need" will get priority over "want".

[Isengrim]

Let alone the notion that open source means you should also be able to build it by yourself.

Off-topic:
You should absolutely be able to build software if its source code and build tools are both freely available. That doesn't mean it has to be buildable on an underpowered machine. If you went and complained to the LineageOS folks that you can't build LineageOS on your 4 GB Windows 7 box, you'd be laughed out of the room.

Building yourself also doesn't mean you don't have to know what you're doing, or should expect a build to function 100% correctly if built with hacks and workarounds like this one. Developers must be responsible for having adequate build environments and following the build instructions as they are given.

[moonbat]

As far as I've observed, all the complaints and heated arguments about being unable to build are down to not following the hardware and/or dependency requirements that were posted. Otherwise we already have unofficial 3rd party builds like the one for Mac OS.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

You should absolutely be able to build software if its source code and build tools are both freely available.

Actually, that's not true. Open Source licensing never comes with a guarantee that you can build a complete product with it yourself or that it even can be compiled. Open Source licensing explicitly disclaims any fitness for any particular purpose for this reason. It is at all times released "as-is". Whether you can use it for your purposes or not falls completely outside of the Open Source scope.
We have no obligation to ensure buildability or that a third party built product performs exactly the same as an official build.
We also especially have no obligation to ensure buildability in other environments other than what is listed as the required one(s), and even that is a matter of guidelines for convenience. We try to ensure buildability in listed environments for those people who, for various reasons, can't/won't use pre-built binaries, but it's not an "absolute".
In fact, that obligation of performing exactly the same as an official build only comes into play when official branding is concerned when there's the reasonable expectation that something with the label actually does what the label implies, but that's a different topic altogether.