2008/11/19 Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 17:59 Tue 18 Nov , Duncan wrote: >> Michael Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 18 Nov >> 2008 22:30:56 +0530: >> >> > Indeed it doesn't. What i wanted to know was that can the bin package >> > provide the files needed for the softwares to compile against? If not, >> > then i guess i may have to stick with firefox lying around my sys. >> >> The -bin package will be 32-bit. 64-bit packages don't like 32-bit >> libraries. However, I'm not sure whether xulrunner is separately >> executable or works as a library. If it's executable, the 32-bit may be >> just fine. If it works as a library, no-go since that would be mixing 32- >> bit libs in 64-bit apps and that won't work. (FWIW xulrunner-1.9, for >> mozilla-firefox-3.x, has both binaries and shared-object libraries >> (.so*), but I'm not sure if the libraries are only used internally or >> not.) > > The wiki entry on xulrunner says:- > > "XULRunner is a runtime environment developed by the Mozilla Foundation for > providing a common back-end for XUL applications. It replaced the Gecko > Runtime Environment, a stalled project with a similar purpose." > ... > "Benefits of having a separate shared run-time environment are the same > as those with shared libraries. Benefits to developers and source-based > systems – that is, systems on which programs are compiled from source as > opposed to downloaded in binary form – are decreased compilation time, > less bandwidth needs and less storage space needed. Benefits for use on > binary-based systems are similarly less bandwidth and storage use." > > So, if i understand correctly, then, the -bin version can let the software > run but can't allow me to build it. So, acroread can work on top of > xulrunner-bin but can't be built (if Adobe someday open-sources it :-) ). >
well, if xulrunner-bin would be built on amd64 then yes. but since it's built for 32bit then no. from the description you've made xulrunner is similar to a library and you cannot mix 32bit and 64bit libraries on the same machine at the same time. the reason for which you probably have both xulrunner and xulrunner-bin installed on a 64bit machine is multilib and apps like adobe reader that depends on xulrunner or seamonkey-bin. so your xulrunner-bin would be ok if you use a 32bit opera and 32bit gecko-mediaplayer but won't work if you use 64bit opera. >> FWIW, firefox-2 and the related gecko version is fast coming to the end >> of its mozilla support period. Any products depending on them that >> aren't already moving to newer gecko dependencies have a relatively short >> life expectancy at this point. Both thunderbird and seamonkey depend on >> them at present but have upgrades in the pipeline, altho there'll be a >> bit of a gap before full release. For thunderbird, there's arrangements >> already in place to cover the gap, but seamonkey and others are up in the >> air at this point. >> >> See the headlining feature article from the front page of the November 6, >> 2008 LWN weekly edition, here: >> >> November 6 LWN Weekly Edition front page: >> http://lwn.net/Articles/305169/ >> >> Article direct link: >> The end of the Road for Firefox 2 >> http://lwn.net/Articles/306015/ >> >> -- >> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. >> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- >> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman >> > > Interesting article, i had thought Mozilla would support the 2.x series > for a lot longer. there isn't any real reason for supporting the old 2 series since the new 3.0 has a lot of more features and better functions. supporting this old serie would only mean a waste of time to backport 3.0 features. -- dott. ing. beso
