On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:31:59AM +0100, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:23:14 +0100 > DJ Lucas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The pc files for libxul and friends do not tell the build machinery that > > it is out of the library search path. The technically correct fix is to > > add '-rpath=${sdkdir}/lib' to the Libs: line, but this would break any > > chance of upgrading libxul on a live system. Better is to symlink the > > libs into /usr/lib as was done in the past. Andy, you've been doing all > > the work there, what are your thoughts? > > I think we should remove xulrunner from the book;) > I'm in agreement - xulrunner looked like a good idea at the time, but it turned out otherwise. Every time you update it, you have to rebuild everything linked to it (see the distro updates on lwn.net whenever a firefox bug is revealed). Those of us who can build our desktops without xulrunner are definitely better off without it.
DJ is known as an iced-tea person - I suppose you need xulrunner for that ? I did note a suggestion recently (perhaps on lwn.net) that libreoffice can now be built without java, but so far I haven't attempted that. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
