Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-11 Thread mad.scientist.at.large
it's worth noting that a failing power supply can produce what seem to be ram problems.  it happened to me, swapping ram, a motherboard and then a power supply made it clear. -- Note the right side (his right) of Mr. Trumps face, He's clearly had a major stroke or similar neurological insult.  

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-11 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-11, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> What's called Management in ISO9000. > > ISO9000 still lets you shoot yourself in the foot. You just wrote > down that you were going to shoot yourself in the foot

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-11 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 04:02:36 BST R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Humphrey > wrote: > > What's called Management in ISO9000. > > ISO9000 still lets you shoot yourself in the foot. You just wrote down > that you were going to shoot yourself

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread R0b0t1
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > What's called Management in ISO9000. > ISO9000 still lets you shoot yourself in the foot. You just wrote down that you were going to shoot yourself in the foot well in advance.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 11:46:22 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:20:53 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > > It turns out that over the past week or so, there have been several > > > > _different_ firefox ebuilds released. One of them was broken: > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 3)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Marc Joliet
Am Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017, 12:27:25 CEST schrieb Marc Joliet: > (Note that it does *not* search the description by default, and doesn't > claim to, either!) Ha, I tried to find a way to search only the description, but came up empty (you *can* search the description by searching through all

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:20:53 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > It turns out that over the past week or so, there have been several > _different_ firefox ebuilds released. One of them was broken: > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 3) was OK. > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 7) was broken. > > Version

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Marc Joliet
Am Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017, 02:57:21 CEST schrieb Grant Edwards: > On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: > > On Monday, October 9, 2017, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2017-10-09, allan gottlieb wrote: > >>> This is a know bug see

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Marc Joliet
Am Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2017, 11:19:02 CEST schrieb Peter Humphrey: > On Monday, 9 October 2017 20:20:53 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > > I don't really see how you can repeatedly release new versions of > > something without changing the version number, but maybe that's just me... > > No, it isn't

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-10 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Monday, 9 October 2017 20:20:53 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > I don't really see how you can repeatedly release new versions of > something without changing the version number, but maybe that's just me... No, it isn't just you. What you describe is a classic example of a developer trying to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-09 Thread R0b0t1
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: >> On Monday, October 9, 2017, Grant Edwards wrote: >>> On 2017-10-09, allan gottlieb wrote: >>> This is a know bug

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-09 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Monday, October 9, 2017, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2017-10-09, allan gottlieb wrote: >> >>> This is a know bug see https://bugs.gentoo.org/633790 >> >> Yep, that's it. Yet when you search for

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-09 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-08, Mick wrote: > Your compiler is barfing at something, but I'm no coder to know what this > might be. In a Gentoo context, I'd start by checking you have installed and > switched to sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r3 which is the latest stable version and at >

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-09 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-09, allan gottlieb wrote: > This is a know bug see https://bugs.gentoo.org/633790 Yep, that's it. Yet when you search for roundingflags or shapedtextflags in Gentoo's bugzilla, it finds nothing. Has the search feature in Bugzilla ever worked? -- Grant Edwards

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread allan gottlieb
On Mon, Oct 09 2017, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2017-10-09, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: >> >>> In this case the namespace of the missing declaration is inside >>> Mozilla's, e.g. it is part of Firefox or a closely bundled

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-09, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: > >> In this case the namespace of the missing declaration is inside >> Mozilla's, e.g. it is part of Firefox or a closely bundled library. > > Yep, after a bit more research, that was

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-09, R0b0t1 wrote: > In this case the namespace of the missing declaration is inside > Mozilla's, e.g. it is part of Firefox or a closely bundled library. Yep, after a bit more research, that was my conclusion. The chromium build finished happily, so I've just

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2017-10-08, R0b0t1 wrote: > >> Usually what happens is it will be corrupted in RAM after being >> verified on disk, and faulty results will be saved to disk from RAM. A >> user on the forums

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-08, R0b0t1 wrote: > Usually what happens is it will be corrupted in RAM after being > verified on disk, and faulty results will be saved to disk from RAM. A > user on the forums recently had this issue compiling dev-lang/vala, > and I have had related issues. I've

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread R0b0t1
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2017-10-08, Mick wrote: >> This won't harm, although I would expect portage would complain and >> not run the emerge if downloads were corrupted somehow. > > True, but I couldn't think

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-08, Mick wrote: > On Sunday, 8 October 2017 18:02:43 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > >> I was afraid it might be failing RAM, but a second attempt failed in >> exactly the same way. I guess I'll delete the ebuild files and the >> source tarball to force a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Mick
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 18:02:43 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > I was afraid it might be failing RAM, but a second attempt failed in > exactly the same way. I guess I'll delete the ebuild files and the > source tarball to force a download and then try again. This won't harm, although I would

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

2017-10-08 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2017-10-08, Mick wrote: > On Sunday, 8 October 2017 03:51:41 BST Grant Edwards wrote: >> When I did my usual update today firefox 52.4.0 failed to build. >> There are thousands of compiler warnings in the build log, but the >> only thing I can find that looks like an