On 05/19/2012 04:20 AM, Andrew Benton wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2012 01:01:28 +0100 > Bruce Dubbs<[email protected]> wrote: > >> For FF, the command >> >> tar -xvf firefox-build-dir/dist/firefox-12.0.en-US.linux-$(uname >> -m).tar.bz2 -C /usr/lib/firefox-12.0 --strip-components=1 >> >> hung on me. I already had a /usr/lib/firefox-12.0 directory with items >> installed from previous builds, but deleting all the files there allowed >> the instruction ot complete. We may want to do something like: >> >> rm -rf /usr/lib/firefox-12.0&& >> mkdir /usr/lib/firefox-12.0&& > Fair enough, it never occurred to me that people may be reinstalling > Firefox. > >> The instructions on the firefox page says: >> >> If you have linked against an already installed Xulrunner, as the root >> user: >> >> make -C firefox-build-dir install&& >> ... >> >> My problem was that I didn't have a firefox-build-dir directory > Then you must have altered your mozconfig or make -f client.mk failed. Yes, despite the lack of --enable-application=firefox in the mozconfig file, I still had this directory and the instructions worked as expected. I believe it is defined in one of the deeper config.mk files...it's been a while since I played in the combined source tree. >> I think we may need to clarify that make -f client.mk is still required >> but the options >> >> # ac_add_options --with-system-libxul >> # ac_add_options --with-libxul-sdk=/usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-12.0 >> >> will bypass most of the long build. Yes, maybe simply provide the full build SBU and a note that this will reduce the build to about 0.3 SBU. > The page says "Compile Firefox by issuing the following commands:" > (which include make -f client.mk) and in the mozconfig it says: > # The rest of these options have no effect if you're > # building against an already installed xulrunner: > > I don't see why anyone would want to install xulrunner. I don't think > the Firefox page should mention xulrunner. It is complicated enough to > describe the options without xulrunner, adding a useless xulrunner into > the mix doesn't help. > Just because you don't see a use for it, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I am perfectly fine with only Firefox providing our dev tools (In fact, I'd even prefer it at this point), but it does require a fair bit of work to make a *complete* Firefox build (something the book hasn't done since around 2008, maybe earlier) and even then it was a bit messy (see the old OpenOffice system mozilla patches for an example). If you want XUL gone from the book, good luck, but it is possible to replace it's individual functionality with Firefox, and that includes the development libs and the XUL pc files, or at least some method for building plug-ins (so we can hack up the few dependent packages to use firefox-plugin.pc or whatever is needed). Alternately, we just continue to build Firefox against XUL with the option to build stand-alone for those who don't need it.
Again, if you can get an --enable-application=firefox build to produce everything that we need, then great! I'm all for it, and may be able to help out after I finish up Java. The only test cases left in the book that I am sure of are OpenJDK and IcedTea-Web, but I believe LibreOffice can still use it too. It would be a shame if we lost mail-merge functionality with thunerbird/seamonkey (and the browser plug-in was actually nice to have on occasion). One popular external example is gecco-media-player, and of course, there are literally thousands of others that I personally happen to find useless, most of which provide working binaries. Also, what is the status of the merged projects now, IOW is TB/SM still building a hacked up XUL for the MozAB or is it all in one again? It would be really nice if we could get down to a ~60MB XUL install and two tiny installs for Firefox and Thunderbird (or somewhere there abouts). FYI, my Firefox build size is 420MB and my install size is 3MB. If TB can build against an installed XUL, then maybe SM could too...any arguments for removing XUL would certainly be killed if that were the case. -- DJ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
