Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/firefox-3.6.12 headers error
On Friday 29 October 2010 20:53:22 Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 20:45 on Friday 29 October 2010, Mick did opine thusly: I noticed this error with the autoheader as shown below: * Applying xulrunner-1.9.2-gtk+-2.21.patch ... [ ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2' ... * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ !! ] You don't mention the version. With that firefox, I assume xulrunner-1.9.2.12 right? Yes. I'm running that here on amd64 too and it all works fine. If it breaks something, it's not visible to me at this point. Same here, day to day browsing seems to work. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] www-client/firefox-3.6.12 headers error
I noticed this error with the autoheader as shown below: * Applying xulrunner-1.9.2-gtk+-2.21.patch ... [ ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2' ... * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ !! ] * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/ipc/chromium/src/third_party/libevent/ * Applying install-sh-1.5.patch ... * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/js/ctypes/libffi/ * Applying install-sh-1.5.4.patch ... * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... * Applying uclibc-ltconf-1.3.0.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/modules/freetype2/builds/unix/ * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/toolkit/crashreporter/google- breakpad/autotools/ * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2/js/src' ... * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ !! ] Source prepared. This is an amd64 box. I can't recall seeing the same on a x86 machine earlier in the week - but may have just missed it. Is it important? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/firefox-3.6.12 headers error
Apparently, though unproven, at 20:45 on Friday 29 October 2010, Mick did opine thusly: I noticed this error with the autoheader as shown below: * Applying xulrunner-1.9.2-gtk+-2.21.patch ... [ ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2' ... * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ !! ] You don't mention the version. With that firefox, I assume xulrunner-1.9.2.12 right? I'm running that here on amd64 too and it all works fine. If it breaks something, it's not visible to me at this point. * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/ipc/chromium/src/third_party/libevent/ * Applying install-sh-1.5.patch ... * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/js/ctypes/libffi/ * Applying install-sh-1.5.4.patch ... * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... * Applying uclibc-ltconf-1.3.0.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/modules/freetype2/builds/unix/ * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/toolkit/crashreporter/google- breakpad/autotools/ * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2/js/src' ... * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ !! ] Source prepared. This is an amd64 box. I can't recall seeing the same on a x86 machine earlier in the week - but may have just missed it. Is it important? -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
