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

[Michael Moore]

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 :-) ).

> 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.

-- 

Regards,
Michael Moore <mikem.unet(at)gmail.com>
About *NIX: If its not fun, why do it?