Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Is it possible to get rid of firefox?

[Beso]

2008/11/19 Michael Moore <mikem.unet@×××××.com>:
> On 17:59 Tue 18 Nov     , Duncan wrote:
>> Michael Moore <mikem.unet@×××××.com> posted
>> 20081118170056.GC8575@×××××××.linwin, excerpted below, on  Tue, 18 Nov
>> 2008 22:30:56 +0530:
>>
>> > Indeed it doesn't. What i wanted to know was that can the bin package
>> > provide the files needed for the softwares to compile against? If not,
>> > then i guess i may have to stick with firefox lying around my sys.
>>
>> The -bin package will be 32-bit.  64-bit packages don't like 32-bit
>> libraries.  However, I'm not sure whether xulrunner is separately
>> executable or works as a library.  If it's executable, the 32-bit may be
>> just fine.  If it works as a library, no-go since that would be mixing 32-
>> bit libs in 64-bit apps and that won't work.  (FWIW xulrunner-1.9, for
>> mozilla-firefox-3.x, has both binaries and shared-object libraries
>> (.so*), but I'm not sure if the libraries are only used internally or
>> not.)
>
> The wiki entry on xulrunner says:-
>
> "XULRunner is a runtime environment developed by the Mozilla Foundation for
> providing a common back-end for XUL applications. It replaced the Gecko
> Runtime Environment, a stalled project with a similar purpose."
> ...
> "Benefits of having a separate shared run-time environment are the same
> as those with shared libraries. Benefits to developers and source-based
> systems – that is, systems on which programs are compiled from source as
> opposed to downloaded in binary form – are decreased compilation time,
> less bandwidth needs and less storage space needed. Benefits for use on
> binary-based systems are similarly less bandwidth and storage use."
>
> So, if i understand correctly, then, the -bin version can let the software
> run but can't allow me to build it. So, acroread can work on top of
> xulrunner-bin but can't be built (if Adobe someday open-sources it :-) ).
>

well, if xulrunner-bin would be built on amd64 then yes. but since
it's built for 32bit then no.
from the description you've made xulrunner is similar to a library and
you cannot mix 32bit
and 64bit libraries on the same machine at the same time. the reason
for which you probably
have both xulrunner and xulrunner-bin installed on a 64bit machine is
multilib and
apps like adobe reader that depends on xulrunner or seamonkey-bin. so your
xulrunner-bin would be ok if you use a 32bit opera and 32bit
gecko-mediaplayer but won't
work if you use 64bit opera.

>> FWIW, firefox-2 and the related gecko version is fast coming to the end
>> of its mozilla support period.  Any products depending on them that
>> aren't already moving to newer gecko dependencies have a relatively short
>> life expectancy at this point.  Both thunderbird and seamonkey depend on
>> them at present but have upgrades in the pipeline, altho there'll be a
>> bit of a gap before full release.  For thunderbird, there's arrangements
>> already in place to cover the gap, but seamonkey and others are up in the
>> air at this point.
>>
>> See the headlining feature article from the front page of the November 6,
>> 2008 LWN weekly edition, here:
>>
>> November 6 LWN Weekly Edition front page:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/305169/
>>
>> Article direct link:
>> The end of the Road for Firefox 2
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/306015/
>>
>> --
>> Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
>> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
>> and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman
>>
>
> Interesting article, i had thought Mozilla would support the 2.x series
> for a lot longer.

there isn't any real reason for supporting the old 2 series since the
new 3.0 has a lot of more features and better functions. supporting
this old serie would only mean a waste of time to backport 3.0
features.

-- 
dott. ing. beso