On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:43:12PM -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 08:59:39AM -0700, Paul Rogers wrote:
> > > > However, I _have_ managed to upgrade to 60.0 (with stylo, pulse) on
> > > > two 8.1 systems
> > >
> > > I'll take that to mean I don't have to upgrade all its dependencies in
> > > the book, e.g. rustc 1.19 -> 1.25
> > >
> > No, many of the firefox deps can be treated as "a recent version
> > of", but if you go too far back the initial configure process will
> > fail (followed by weird error messages :)
>
> I tried to make FF60, but soon it said 8.1's rust-1.19 was too old, I needed
> "at least" (IIRC) rust-1.24. Following your svn book recommendation I ran
> the rust-1.25 build all morning. Then coming back to FF, now when it tried
> to get the rust version it barfed at a library that had what appeared to be
> an md5sum in its name! IINODTIA I admit to having mistakenly not removed
> 1.19 first. Back to square one and another 47 SBUs, or can I just remove the
> md5sum from the name?
I don't understand why you would want to rename the library. From
memory, rust installs the proverbial load of libraries, each of
which has a hash added to its name.
Did 1.25 complete it's install ?
rustc --version
cargo --version
The build of rustc has changed each time we updated it. But I do
recall that someone had an issue after trying what turned out to be
an unstable configuration. I forget the details, but I think rust
failed to build until he removed the existing version.
Whenever I say 'removed', I mean 'renamed, or moved elsewhere so that
it cannot be found in normal use'. If it has to be reinstated,
backups are also useful if you know exactly what was installed - so
your package manager might solve that.
However, I have several times updated my version of rust without
having to delete the older version.
Unfortunately, rust seems to go out of its way to make building hard
(e.g. error messages without detail, or if you do get the details
then an inability to fix it because the hash of the source has
changed and fails validation). I just hope that its claimed
security advantages are true.
I say hash because I don't think these are md5sums (too 'easy' to
produce a file which has been altered but gives the same hash,
according to security researchers).
>
> >
> > For ff60, ISTR nss-3.36.1 is a minimum.
>
> Can't check on this box, but I have whatever 8.1 uses.
>
If you get there, you'll need to upgrade - 3.36.1 is recent.
I remember that early 60betas needed 3.36, which Bruce had just put
into the book, but later 3.36.1 was needed. The first public beta
of 61 needed 3.37, but I'm sure 3.37.1 is likely to be needed when I
next try a beta.
In general, whenever I update a system's firefox to a new release I
always update nspr, nss, sqlite - plus anything else which turns out
to be too old.
ĸen
--
Remembering The People's Republic of Treacle Mine Road.
Truth! Justice! Freedom! Reasonably priced Love!
And a Hard-boiled Egg!
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
