1:29 p.m.
Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
looking all over the place for one.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
1:37 p.m.
I downloaded the .png, .desktop and .spec file, a while back.
I then download the latest .tar.gz file, and rpmbuild against it.
I just did this for Firefox 2.0.0.2, worked like a charm.
Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
looking all over the place for one.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit:
https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update
or send a blank email message to:
site-update-subscribe(a)bubbanfriends.org
1:40 p.m.
elite elite a écrit :
Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
looking all over the place for one.
http://remi.collet.free.fr/index.php?2007/02/24/302-firefox-2002-1
Remi.
4:08 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 20:40 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
elite elite a écrit :
> Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
> looking all over the place for one.
>
>
http://remi.collet.free.fr/index.php?2007/02/24/302-firefox-2002-1
Remi.
If one tries to install the firefox2 rpm on a FC6 installation you get
these dependency errors:
error: Failed dependencies:
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
devhelp-0.12-9.fc6.i386
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
yelp-2.16.0-11.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9 is needed by (installed)
liferea-1.0.26-2.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9-3.fc6 is needed by (installed)
firefox-devel-1.5.0.9-3.fc6.i386
Would anyone care to guess how we get around these dependencies?
--
=======================================================================
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
4:53 p.m.
On 2/27/07, Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 20:40 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> elite elite a écrit :
> > Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
> > looking all over the place for one.
> >
> >
> http://remi.collet.free.fr/index.php?2007/02/24/302-firefox-2002-1
>
> Remi.
>
If one tries to install the firefox2 rpm on a FC6 installation you get
these dependency errors:
error: Failed dependencies:
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
devhelp-0.12-9.fc6.i386
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
yelp-2.16.0-11.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9 is needed by (installed)
liferea-1.0.26-2.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9-3.fc6 is needed by (installed)
firefox-devel-1.5.0.9-3.fc6.i386
Would anyone care to guess how we get around these dependencies?
That's no need to use the rpm. Just use the program from mozilla.org
as http://www.bobpeers.com/linux/firefox2_on_fedora_core_6 said.
I am running it fine without remove 1.5.0.9
5:02 p.m.
Aaron Konstam a écrit :
If one tries to install the firefox2 rpm on a FC6 installation you
get
these dependency errors:
error: Failed dependencies:
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
devhelp-0.12-9.fc6.i386
gecko-libs = 1.8.0.9 is needed by (installed)
yelp-2.16.0-11.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9 is needed by (installed)
liferea-1.0.26-2.fc6.i386
firefox = 1.5.0.9-3.fc6 is needed by (installed)
firefox-devel-1.5.0.9-3.fc6.i386
devhelp, yelp, liferea and some others RPM are also available on remi's
repo (rebuild with firefox 2.0.0.2).
Read the post on my blog (sorry, mainly in french), the list is here.
Remi.
6:11 p.m.
On 2/27/07, elite elite <fasteliteprogrammer(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Did anyone make a rpm that work with fc5?I been
looking all over the place for one.
This is just a alternative suggestion btw ..
I would say installing from tarball into your home folder is more
convenient ... auto update from Mozilla.com works if your firefox is
installed somewhere you can read/write from ..
untar it somewhere in ur home folder, create a symlink to the launcher
script into ~/bin/ , edit ~/.bash_profile and change the path export
to
PATH=$HOME/bin:$PATH (this will make symlinks in ~/bin/ have higher
priority in execution)
--
-----------------------------------------------
regards
Hikaru
-----------------------------------------------
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
Amano Hikaru
天野晃 「あまの ひかる」
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
ICT 2nd Year 1st Semester
mohd.izhar.firdaus(a)gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------
kagesenshi.87(a)gmail.com
GPG: http://www.rootshell.be/~kagesens/public-key.asc
Blog: http://kagesenshi.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------
10:05 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 08:11 +0800, Hikaru Amano wrote:
edit ~/.bash_profile and change the path export to
PATH=$HOME/bin:$PATH (this will make symlinks in ~/bin/ have higher
priority in execution)
Be aware that has security risks. If someone manages to get a command
named "ls" into your ~/bin/ it could do anything that it's programmed to
do, while you're innocently trying to list a file.
--
(This box runs FC6, my others run FC4 & FC5, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:28 a.m.
On 2/27/07, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Be aware that has security risks. If someone manages to get a
command
named "ls" into your ~/bin/ it could do anything that it's programmed to
do, while you're innocently trying to list a file.
Oh .. haha ... I had never thought about that bfore .. thanx :)
--
-----------------------------------------------
regards
Hikaru
-----------------------------------------------
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
Amano Hikaru
天野晃 「あまの ひかる」
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
ICT 2nd Year 1st Semester
mohd.izhar.firdaus(a)gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------
kagesenshi.87(a)gmail.com
GPG: http://www.rootshell.be/~kagesens/public-key.asc
Blog: http://kagesenshi.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------
8:02 a.m.
Hikaru Amano wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Be aware that has security risks. If someone manages to get a command
> named "ls" into your ~/bin/ it could do anything that it's programmed
to
> do, while you're innocently trying to list a file.
>
Oh .. haha ... I had never thought about that bfore .. thanx :)
That's the oldest trick in the book - and kind of a tipoff that you
haven't read the book...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:06 a.m.
On 2/27/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's the oldest trick in the book - and kind of a tipoff that
you
haven't read the book...
and i wonder what book is that XD
--
-----------------------------------------------
regards
Hikaru
-----------------------------------------------
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
Amano Hikaru
天野晃 「あまの ひかる」
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
ICT 2nd Year 1st Semester
mohd.izhar.firdaus(a)gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------
kagesenshi.87(a)gmail.com
GPG: http://www.rootshell.be/~kagesens/public-key.asc
Blog: http://kagesenshi.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------
9:45 a.m.
Hikaru Amano wrote:
On 2/27/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the oldest trick in the book - and kind of a tipoff that you
> haven't read the book...
and i wonder what book is that XD
Just about any book on computer security or best practices should cover
why PATH should not include your current directory. Obviously the
people at Microsoft didn't read them either.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
10:25 a.m.
On 2/27/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just about any book on computer security or best practices should
cover
why PATH should not include your current directory. Obviously the
people at Microsoft didn't read them either.
Agree .. its a tradeoff between convenience and security ....
therefore, a balanced equation :P .. something gained something loss
..
--
-----------------------------------------------
regards
Hikaru
-----------------------------------------------
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail
Amano Hikaru
天野晃 「あまの ひかる」
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
ICT 2nd Year 1st Semester
mohd.izhar.firdaus(a)gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------
kagesenshi.87(a)gmail.com
GPG: http://www.rootshell.be/~kagesens/public-key.asc
Blog: http://kagesenshi.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------
11:17 a.m.
Hikaru Amano wrote:
On 2/27/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Just about any book on computer security or best practices should cover
> why PATH should not include your current directory. Obviously the
> people at Microsoft didn't read them either.
>
Agree .. its a tradeoff between convenience and security ....
therefore, a balanced equation :P .. something gained something loss
..
Yes, the convenience of not having to specify the path to the current
directory (./) on the rare occasion you'd want to do that instead of
putting your executable in a sensible place comes at the expense of
never knowing exactly what you are going to run.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
6305
days inactive
6306
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Craig -
Les Mikesell -
Mike Burger -
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail -
Remi Collet -
Tim -
Wong Kwok-hon