[Gllug] Mozilla 1.3 SRPM on RedHat 7.2

[James de Lurker]

Tethys wrote:

> Just curious... if you're building from source, why are you using the
> SRPM, and not just grabbing the mozilla source directly? And unless
> you're actively hacking mozilla (in which case, the SRPM would be
> out of date anyway), why not just grab a precomiled binary?

I tend to be fairly strict about _not_ adding stuff by means other than
rpm, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the rpm database. All that pain,
so I may as well retain the gain...

There are dependancies from Galeon that need to be preserved, as but one
example.

Deb is supposed to be easier, without the dependancy hell of RedHat rpm.
( had this conversion yesterday, on the back from the m o o t seminar at
Cambridge ). Are there any Mozilla 1.3 Deb - or other distro packaging
problems folk know about, as an aside from this RedHat problem? Are other
distros affected with 1.3 runtime/startup failures?

I can email the report from tripwire, as to where everything got located, 
but I'm not sure that will help. Perhaps there is a "debug" mode where I
can invoke mozilla so that it provides copious runtime setup info to a
logfile?

My money is on something to do with library renaming / relocation. Probably
something dead simple, like a missing symlink, might fix this!
Best clues from studying the trip report(s) of 1.0.1 rpm upgrading (works)
to this 1.3 (broken), in conjunction with the .spec binary rpm building
and environment postfix bits. I'll maybe get stuck into some creative
diffing later on, if I have time.

The SRPM .spec file has tantalising statements about library file 
relocations and naming AFAIR. A clue. Anyone know how to make mozilla more
helpful about start-up crash reporting? It doesn't crash, 'cos it just
never seems to get started! ( A bit like the way I felt this morning... )

After I've done a quarterly entire backup of this box, I might be inclined
to pursue more aggressive tactics to investigate, or get it running, on
a cloned disk. But I really don't want to break a reliable production code
installation and maybe lose 6 sets of mail & news for two users that use
this box as a single user desktop. The need to run two active different
mailing identities simultaneously from one threaded application doesn't
arise. AFAIR the multi-threading for mozilla was really for the browser, 
but I've never tried it. The Netscape 4 port to linux was a dogs breakfast,
and was one of the factors that pushed me to converting to mozilla.
Netscape on linux couldn't run multiple instances on one box. I have 
nothing to lose, only things to gain, when threading with moz gets sorted.

But I agree with your comments earlier; a windows centric single user
desktop environment must not be the principal driver in development.

One user centred focus for my choice of mozilla as cross platform is a
common UI. I support a number of SME windows users that I intend to wean 
over to Linux for Internet related activities. Few of them can be @rsed to
climb a steep IT learning curve, when all they wanna do is get some work
done reliably,  with no worries about losing email and news archives, or
catching something nasty from malware in attachments.

-- 

   -- James

 From and Reply To are INVALID.

All public postings use munged headers[1]- To contact me off list:
   1) Remove "M U N G I E j u m p" ONLY: leave that "nospam" in there!
   2) change "hotmail" 2 "myrealbox" after the @



-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug