| 1 |
Davyd McColl wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On January 3, 2019 8:59:09 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Davyd McColl wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>>> On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: |
| 13 |
>>>>>> I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would |
| 14 |
>>>>>> make |
| 15 |
>>>>>> Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads |
| 16 |
>>>>>> Firefox |
| 17 |
>>>>>> from the website. |
| 18 |
>>>>> Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I |
| 19 |
>>>>> meantion in my previous post? |
| 20 |
>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>> That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't |
| 26 |
>>>> be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug |
| 27 |
>>>> related |
| 28 |
>>>> to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox |
| 29 |
>>>> itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in |
| 30 |
>>>> its own download directory and then move them after it is |
| 31 |
>>>> completed. I |
| 32 |
>>>> may try that as well. |
| 33 |
>>>> |
| 34 |
>>>> Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I |
| 35 |
>>>> like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would |
| 36 |
>>>> eliminate |
| 37 |
>>>> any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test |
| 38 |
>>>> it. I |
| 39 |
>>>> may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's |
| 40 |
>>>> Firefox itself. |
| 41 |
>>> I agree it's a good idea to try the bin. Also perhaps to try to to |
| 42 |
>>> back to as vanilla USE flags as possible. IIRC, my only deviances from |
| 43 |
>>> the default USE flags are to disable pulseaudio and enable clang |
| 44 |
>>> (though that was only recently after the announcement about how it was |
| 45 |
>>> supposed to improve performance so much, and was to become the |
| 46 |
>>> mozilla-preferred method). |
| 47 |
>>> |
| 48 |
>>> Fortunately, at least Firefox builds relatively quickly, unlike |
| 49 |
>>> chromium (~40 min vs ~2.5h on my machine). |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> Yea, it is a good idea. Thing is, my network is busy right now. I'm on |
| 52 |
>> a video download binge again. -_O |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
>> Question. Just what is clang? I did a eix for it but its description |
| 55 |
>> is minimal and not to informative, if one doesn't already know what it |
| 56 |
>> is. If you know, what does it add to Firefox and briefly how does it do |
| 57 |
>> it? The reason I ask, could that help with my current issue? I'm all |
| 58 |
>> for Firefox being faster, even on this pretty fast rig, but I'd also |
| 59 |
>> give it a try as well if it would fix this issue and as a bonus make |
| 60 |
>> Firefox work better/faster/whatever as well. |
| 61 |
> It's a front-end for llvm (a kind of generic compiler) - bascially a |
| 62 |
> compiler replacement for gcc which has shown good compile times and |
| 63 |
> the Mozilla team is claiming fairly reasonable performance gains when |
| 64 |
> compiled with clang. It's been around a while, so it's not like you're |
| 65 |
> taking a huge chance or anything. It's just not quite as venerable as |
| 66 |
> gcc. |
| 67 |
>> |
| 68 |
>> Thanks. |
| 69 |
>> |
| 70 |
>> Dale |
| 71 |
>> |
| 72 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
When I read the info from eix, I was thinking it might be something like |
| 76 |
that. Doubt it would fix my current issue so I'll save that for later, |
| 77 |
when I get this issue sorted out. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
Thanks for the info. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Dale |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
:-) :-) |
Archives