1 |
On 2009-01-19, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>>>>> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't |
6 |
>>>>>> compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some |
7 |
>>>>>> blockers, please add 'xulrunner' to your USE-flags. |
8 |
>>>>>> |
9 |
>>>>>> Does anybody have idea what the above sentence is trying to say? |
10 |
>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>> It's saying that if you use firefox -3*, then you should |
12 |
>>>>> remove "firefox" from your USE and add "xulrunner" instead. |
13 |
>>>>> This way, nothing in the tree will try to pull in firefox-2* |
14 |
>>>>> (which obviously conflicts with firefox-3*). |
15 |
>>>> |
16 |
>>>> Wow. I'm not doubting that what you say is true, but how |
17 |
>>>> anybody was supposed to get that from the emerge message is |
18 |
>>>> beyond me. |
19 |
>>>> |
20 |
>>>>> There have been 4 earlier threads on this very topic in the |
21 |
>>>>> last fortnight. For more details, please check the recent |
22 |
>>>>> archives (rehashing the same thing over and over is getting |
23 |
>>>>> really tedious) |
24 |
>>>> |
25 |
>>>> Sort of makes you wonder if the message is a bit too cryptic, |
26 |
>>>> eh? |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>>> If I read that message out loud, it sounds suspiciously like a |
29 |
>>> babelfish translation from Japanese to English. Whatever it |
30 |
>>> is, the author of the message is certainly not a native |
31 |
>>> English speaker. |
32 |
>>> |
33 |
>>> But the intent is easy to see if you already know how it |
34 |
>>> works. |
35 |
>> |
36 |
>> Yes, once somebody has told you the answer, it's possible to |
37 |
>> make some sense of the message. But, I stand by my assertion |
38 |
>> that give just the message very many people are going to figure |
39 |
>> out that it means you need to replace the "firefox" use flag |
40 |
>> with the "xulrunner" use flag so that apps will build against |
41 |
>> firefox-3 instead of trying to build against firefox-2. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Someone should file a bug to have the message changed to something clearer. |
44 |
|
45 |
I'd be happy to do that. Is the following correct? |
46 |
|
47 |
The UI and rendering libraries that were part of the |
48 |
mozilla-firefox 2.x package have been split from the mozilla |
49 |
firefox-3.x package and are now in the xulrunner package. In |
50 |
order for ebuilds to use xulrunner instead of mozilla-firefox |
51 |
2.x, the "firefox" USE flag must be replaced by the |
52 |
"xulrunner" USE flag. Failure to replace the "firefox" USE |
53 |
flag with the "xulrunner" USE flag will result in portage |
54 |
requiring mozilla-firefox 2.x which is incompatible with |
55 |
mozilla-firefox 3.x -- this will block some packages from |
56 |
building. |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Gee, I feel kind of |
60 |
at LIGHT in the head now, |
61 |
visi.com knowing I can't make my |
62 |
satellite dish PAYMENTS! |