10:31 a.m.
Hello all,
Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
rawhide in the next couple of days.
What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
exact)
Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
Gilboa
11:44 a.m.
On 11/30/2005 11:31 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
Hello all,
Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
rawhide in the next couple of days.
What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
exact)
Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
find out for sure? :-)
11:50 a.m.
On 11/30/05, Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/30/2005 11:31 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
> rawhide in the next couple of days.
> What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
> exact)
> Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
>
Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
find out for sure? :-)
Almost but not quite. Off the top of my head once you've installed the
spec file you need to:
In the spec file you need to change the nspr/nspr-devel to
mozilla-nspr[-devel] with version of 1.7.10 (it will inc greater vers)
and remove the cairo dep.
Then in the firefox-mozconfig remove the lines with system cairo and
pango. You need to remove the pango because it deps on cairo.
Once you've done that you should be able to do a rpmbuild -ba
firefox.spec and then just wait. I've been doing this ever since the
alphas started to appear in rawhide.
Pete
12:29 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:50 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On 11/30/05, Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2005 11:31 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
> > rawhide in the next couple of days.
> > What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
> > exact)
> > Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
> >
> Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
> should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
> find out for sure? :-)
>
Almost but not quite. Off the top of my head once you've installed the
spec file you need to:
In the spec file you need to change the nspr/nspr-devel to
mozilla-nspr[-devel] with version of 1.7.10 (it will inc greater vers)
and remove the cairo dep.
Then in the firefox-mozconfig remove the lines with system cairo and
pango. You need to remove the pango because it deps on cairo.
Once you've done that you should be able to do a rpmbuild -ba
firefox.spec and then just wait. I've been doing this ever since the
alphas started to appear in rawhide.
Pete
Thanks.
I'll give it a try once the rawhide SRPMs hit the servers.
Gilboa
4:24 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:50 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On 11/30/05, Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Almost but not quite. Off the top of my head once you've installed the
spec file you need to:
In the spec file you need to change the nspr/nspr-devel to
mozilla-nspr[-devel] with version of 1.7.10 (it will inc greater vers)
and remove the cairo dep.
Then in the firefox-mozconfig remove the lines with system cairo and
pango. You need to remove the pango because it deps on cairo.
Once you've done that you should be able to do a rpmbuild -ba
firefox.spec and then just wait. I've been doing this ever since the
alphas started to appear in rawhide.
Pete
Thanks!
FF 1.5 (x86-64) is working just fine now.
Gilboa
12:35 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:44:15PM -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their
way into
>rawhide in the next couple of days. What are the chances of building
>their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be exact) Should I just give up and build
>the vanilla source package?
Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
find out for sure? :-)
Any plans to try to make an update for FC3? (Building the rawhide one is a
pain because of cairo and pango and etc.)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
12:49 p.m.
Matthew Miller schrieb:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:44:15PM -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
>>rawhide in the next couple of days. What are the chances of building
>>their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be exact) Should I just give up and build
>>the vanilla source package?
>>
>>
>Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
>should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
>find out for sure? :-)
>
>
Any plans to try to make an update for FC3? (Building the rawhide one is a
pain because of cairo and pango and etc.)
same for fc4 see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174523
5:59 a.m.
Christopher Aillon wrote :
> Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their
way into
> rawhide in the next couple of days.
> What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
> exact)
> Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
Once the s390(x) builds finish, it should hit rawhide. I'd imagine you
should be able to build it on FC4 without issue, but why not try and
find out for sure? :-)
I'm trying this too, and am running into major issues, related to my build
environment : I'm using mock on an x86_64 machine, in an i386 chroot for
the i386 builds.
Well, the mozilla/firefox build seems to be pretty messed up, and messy in
general, and I'm still fighting to try and *not* get the build to try and
compile x86_64 code (and 64bit asm bits) inside the i386 root!
First problem :
The configure script set --host, --target and --build to x86_64-*. This is
usually forced to the right target by %configure, which is not used here.
Second problem :
The configure "OS_TEST=`uname -m`" line causes 64bit asm to be used in
xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/.
Third problem :
Build starts using -m64 and other x86_64 specific flags and files inside
security/. I'm not sure where/why that starts yet, I'm still onto that one.
IMHO, when Makefiles want to detect the CPU type, they should use what was
passed as --target to the configure script, which isn't happening
everywhere here. Should I file these issues as bugs (upstream, I guess),
or are developers just not interested as long as it works for the general
case (i.e. building on the arch the binary will be built for)?
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) - Linux kernel 2.6.14-1.1637_FC4
Load : 0.78 0.33 0.18
6:13 a.m.
Ralf Ertzinger wrote :
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:59:06PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Second problem :
> The configure "OS_TEST=`uname -m`" line causes 64bit asm to be used in
> xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/.
Try running the build under setarch.
Yeah, that's the proper "workaround", but still... when I force --target
for a build, I expect it to be honored and not have "uname foo" run all
over the place :-)
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) - Linux kernel 2.6.14-1.1637_FC4
Load : 0.63 0.55 0.41
11:32 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:13 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
Ralf Ertzinger wrote :
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:59:06PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
>
> > Second problem :
> > The configure "OS_TEST=`uname -m`" line causes 64bit asm to be used
in
> > xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/.
>
> Try running the build under setarch.
Yeah, that's the proper "workaround", but still... when I force --target
for a build, I expect it to be honored and not have "uname foo" run all
over the place :-)
It's already in bugzilla.
Paul
12:01 p.m.
Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:13 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
>Ralf Ertzinger wrote :
>
>
>
>>On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 12:59:06PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Second problem :
>>>The configure "OS_TEST=`uname -m`" line causes 64bit asm to be used
in
>>>xpcom/reflect/xptcall/src/md/unix/.
>>>
>>>
>>Try running the build under setarch.
>>
>>
>Yeah, that's the proper "workaround", but still... when I force
--target
>for a build, I expect it to be honored and not have "uname foo" run all
>over the place :-)
>
>
It's already in bugzilla.
Paul
it still does'nt build with setarch i386 rpmbuild -bb firefox.spec
--target=i386 (it looks in lib64 for some libs) ... now builing it on my
older athlonxp box...
8:45 a.m.
Gilboa Davara wrote:
Hello all,
Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
rawhide in the next couple of days.
What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
exact)
Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
Gilboa
Nope. Just tried:
pmbuild --rebuild firefox-1.5-1.src.rpm
Installing firefox-1.5-1.src.rpm
error: Failed build dependencies:
nspr-devel >= 4.6 is needed by firefox-1.5-1.x86_64
cairo-devel >= 0.5 is needed by firefox-1.5-1.x86_64
[nbecker@nbecker2 ~]$ rpm -q nspr-devel
package nspr-devel is not installed
[nbecker@nbecker2 ~]$ sudo yum install nspr-devel cairo-devel
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
Reading repository metadata in from local files
Parsing package install arguments
No Match for argument: nspr-devel
Resolving Dependencies
--> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
---> Downloading header for cairo-devel to pack into transaction set.
cairo-devel-0.2.0-1.2.fc4 100% |=========================| 2.6 kB 00:00
---> Package cairo-devel.x86_64 0:0.2.0-1.2.fc4.rf set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: cairo = 0.2.0-1.2.fc4.rf for package: cairo-devel
--> Processing Dependency: libpixman-devel for package: cairo-devel
--> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes.
--> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
---> Downloading header for libpixman-devel to pack into transaction set.
libpixman-devel-0.1.2-1.2 100% |=========================| 2.5 kB 00:00
---> Package libpixman-devel.x86_64 0:0.1.2-1.2.fc4.rf set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libpixman = 0.1.2-1.2.fc4.rf for package: libpixman-devel
--> Processing Dependency: cairo = 0.2.0-1.2.fc4.rf for package: cairo-devel
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: cairo = 0.2.0-1.2.fc4.rf is needed by package cairo-devel
Error: Missing Dependency: libpixman = 0.1.2-1.2.fc4.rf is needed by package
libpixman-devel
9:14 a.m.
On 12/1/05, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
> rawhide in the next couple of days.
> What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
> exact)
> Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
>
> Gilboa
>
Nope. Just tried:
Read my post from the other day on how to compile it on FC4
P
1:43 p.m.
Peter Robinson wrote:
On 12/1/05, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Just wondering, I assume that FF 1.5 RPMs will be making their way into
> > rawhide in the next couple of days.
> > What are the chances of building their SRPMs on FC4? (x86-64 to be
> > exact)
> > Should I just give up and build the vanilla source package?
> >
> > Gilboa
> >
>
> Nope. Just tried:
Read my post from the other day on how to compile it on FC4
P
Thanks, built. Install complained, though, should I worry?
sudo rpm -U RPM/RPMS/x86_64/firefox-1.5-1.x86_64.rpm
File '/usr/share/applications/kde/amarok.desktop' contains invalid MIME type
'audio/x-pn-realaudioaudio/x-scpls' that has more than one slash
File '/usr/share/applications/kde/amarok.desktop' contains invalid MIME type
'audio/x-pn-realaudioaudio/x-scpls' that has more than one slash
2:24 p.m.
On Thursday, 01 December 2005 at 20:43, Neal Becker wrote:
[...]
Thanks, built. Install complained, though, should I worry?
sudo rpm -U RPM/RPMS/x86_64/firefox-1.5-1.x86_64.rpm
File '/usr/share/applications/kde/amarok.desktop' contains invalid MIME type
'audio/x-pn-realaudioaudio/x-scpls' that has more than one slash
File '/usr/share/applications/kde/amarok.desktop' contains invalid MIME type
'audio/x-pn-realaudioaudio/x-scpls' that has more than one slash
^
Insert one ';' here. And file a bugzilla. ;)
R.
--
APT/YUM RPM repository for Fedora Core http://rpm.greysector.net/
mpg321, xmp, faad2, lame, mad, *mplayer*, rdesktop, tin, xvid, mks, mutt
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
2:27 p.m.
BTW, any good reason the SRPM is set to build with -Os instead of a more
typical setting, like -O2?
6720
days inactive
6722
days old
16 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Christopher Aillon -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
dragoran -
Gilboa Davara -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Saou -
Neal Becker -
Paul Nasrat -
Peter Robinson -
Ralf Ertzinger