-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/14/10 5:25 PM, betty gilmore wrote:
> Feedback: not good
>
> --
> Package manager version: 0.28.5
> Distribution version: selfupdate-rsync Tue Sep 14 05:26:59 2010, 10.3,
> powerpc
> Mac OS X version: 10.3.9
> Xcode version: 1.5
> gcc version: 3
Feedback: not good
--
Package manager version: 0.28.5
Distribution version: selfupdate-rsync Tue Sep 14 05:26:59 2010, 10.3,
powerpc
Mac OS X version: 10.3.9
Xcode version: 1.5
gcc version: 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1666)
make version: 3.79
Feedback Courtesy of FinkCommander
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 04:07:59AM +0200, Egon Witt wrote:
> My Dears
>
> --
> Package manager version: 0.23.8
> Distribution version: 0.7.2
> Mac OS X version: 10.3.9
> Developer Tools not installed
> Feedback Courtesy of FinkCommander
What about mozilla-1.7.5-1?
However, OS X 10.3 has not been
My Dears
--
Package manager version: 0.23.8
Distribution version: 0.7.2
Mac OS X version: 10.3.9
Developer Tools not installed
Feedback Courtesy of FinkCommander
Best Regards
Egon Witt
begin:vcard
fn:Egon Witt
n:Witt;Egon
adr;dom:;;Veringstr. 38;Hamburg;;21107
email;internet:[email protected]
v
On 10/22/06, Endymion F. Seiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> browser is broken
>
> Illegal instruction error on execution of binary
>
Not pasting a verbatim error message, e.g. from your terminal window,
or a CrashReporter log, makes it hard to diagnose the problem.
However, looking at http://pd
browser is broken
Illegal instruction error on execution of binary
--
Package manager version: 0.24.26
Distribution version: 0.8.1.rsync i386
Mac OS X version: 10.4.8
Xcode version: 2.4
gcc version: 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)
make version: 3.80
Feedback Courtesy of FinkCommander
--
On 16 Aug 2006, at 00:59, Philip Lamb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The mozilla package in 10.4 appears to be updated periodically,
> despite having no maintainer.
>
> The fact that this package is not available on intel is holding up
> one of my packages (openvrml) from being built on intel, since
> open
Philip Lamb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The mozilla package in 10.4 appears to be updated periodically,
> despite having no maintainer.
Those updates are to fix bugs in the package and not upgrades to the
actual program (stuck on old 1.7.5 because it has no maintainer).
> The fact that this package
On 8/15/06, Philip Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The mozilla package in 10.4 appears to be updated periodically,
> despite having no maintainer.
>
> The fact that this package is not available on intel is holding up
> one of my packages (openvrml) from being built on intel, since
>
Hi all,
The mozilla package in 10.4 appears to be updated periodically,
despite having no maintainer.
The fact that this package is not available on intel is holding up
one of my packages (openvrml) from being built on intel, since
openvrml needs mozilla for its javascript support.
As I un
Thanks for the reply Alex,
I had hopes that fix would work. I've seen that sort of thing on
Unix Netscape, so thought it might work.
I deleted the .mozilla directory, reran mozilla, got the same error
type (slight difference on Bus error #). Repeated the directory
delete, restarted the
On 3/2/06, Harley Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Alex,
>
> I had hopes that fix would work. I've seen that sort of thing on
> Unix Netscape, so thought it might work.
>
> I deleted the .mozilla directory, reran mozilla, got the same error
> type (slight difference on Bus e
On 3/1/06, Harley Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good sirs,
> I'm having difficulty running mozilla. I'm running under the newer
> Tiger OS X, latest version. Mozilla ran fine on the previous
> installation of X11, and now fails to initialize giving the following
> warning:
>
> $ mozilla
> Er
Good sirs,
I'm having difficulty running mozilla. I'm running under the newer
Tiger OS X, latest version. Mozilla ran fine on the previous
installation of X11, and now fails to initialize giving the following
warning:
$ mozilla
Error: No running window found.
/sw/bin/mozilla: line 62: 6
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:43:45AM -0600, Carlos Le Mare wrote:
> I got problems trying to install Mozilla in my
> computer...
>
> Package manager version: 0.23.10
> Distribution version: 0.8.0
> Mac OS X version: 10.4.3
> Xcode version: 2.1
> gcc version: 4.0.0 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5026)
I got problems trying to install Mozilla in my
computer...
Computer: PowerBook 15", G4 1.67 Ghz, 1GB RAM,
1440x960, millions. MacOSX 10.4.3
Error:
cc -o Darwin8.3.0_OPT.OBJ/asymmkey.o -c -O2 -Dppc
-Wmost
-fpascal-strings -no-cpp-precomp -fno-common -pipe
-DDARWIN
-DHAVE_STRERROR -DHAVE_BSD_FLO
--
Package manager version: 0.23.8
Distribution version: 0.7.2
Mac OS X
version: 10.3.9
Xcode version: 1.5
gcc version: 3.3 20030304 (Apple
Computer, Inc. build 1666)
make version: 3.79
Feedback Courtesy of
FinkCommander
When building mozilla the binary pkg does not install the needed gtk
depen
Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
Hi folks,
As some of you have noticed, Mozilla will not build with Xorg. This is
because it uses a new version of freetype which removed a formerly
deprecated API.
I have a version of mozilla in my experimental dir that is patched to
use the replacement API. It should bui
Hi folks,
As some of you have noticed, Mozilla will not build with Xorg. This is
because it uses a new version of freetype which removed a formerly
deprecated API.
I have a version of mozilla in my experimental dir that is patched to
use the replacement API. It should build with Xorg, and it *m
I'm intending to do so.
There's no technical problem to have both crypto and non-crypto
packages, but maintaining two mozilla packages costs very high for me
and I believe there's no one who wants mozilla without ssl or S/MIME
support.
Regards,
On 2002.06.06, at 03:19, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Is mozilla going to be crypto-only? I'll have to change the kdebindings
package if so, just wanted to make sure. :)
--
Ben Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://defiance.dyndns.org/ / http://radio.scenespot.org/
...if humanoids eat chicken, then obviously they'd eat their own
spec
sounds good to me though i believe it was 0.9.9-1 that introduced this
bug. and i know it was fixed in -4 the inbetween version s I'm not
certain of so only users that install 0.9.9-1 need worry about this issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>OK, I can confirm that simply upgrading to mozilla-0.9.9
OK, I can confirm that simply upgrading to mozilla-0.9.9-4 does not repair
the problem, but by manually running "sudo chown drm:staff /Users/drm/.mozilla"
I was able to get it to run.
Next, I tried manually deleting /Users/drm/.mozilla and then reinstalling
mozilla. This also worked fine. So I
hmm I was just a suggestion...I don't know very much about hte mozilla
port haven't looked at it. Maybe add a check to the mozilla script? I
dont' know how it's being made or why it's wrong when being made. But i
don't know that is the problem.
I'm glad that you figured out the issue with rm a
That doesn't explain things in my case. I do all of my compiling and
installing while logged in as root, NOT via sudo. (Why? long story, see
the P.S. if you care). So the install script never heard of user drm,
and couldn't be responsible for creating /Users/drm/.mozilla.
See, the real proble
I think it's a problem with the install script...since it's run in sudo
mode it's prolly making the ~/.mozilla directly from the install script
and not to %i. That would be my guess. Maybe run a check on ~/.mozilla
if owned by root nuke it?? I don't know haven't thought of that part or
hack the
OK, that might be the problem in my case. My ~/.mozilla directory is owned
by root, but how did that happen? And more importantly, how can we possibly
fix this in a fink context? We can't tell fink users "if you want to run
mozilla, make sure that you and all other users on your machine first d
simple check ~/.mozilla and make sure it's owned by user not root. I had
the same problem and Feanor helped me fix it on the devel list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>OK, we can look at it.
>
>I still have it installed. (It compiled and installed just fine.) I
>unlimit
>the stacksize (just in cas
OK, we can look at it.
I still have it installed. (It compiled and installed just fine.) I unlimit
the stacksize (just in case), and try to run it, and it silently dies with
no crash log and entry in the console log.
Pretty hard to debug, I have to admit...
-- Dave
I know there was also a fix for mozilla 0.9.9, and 0.4 is released I think
0.9.9 should be re looked at now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I'm one of the people who has not been able to get mozilla-0.9.9 running
>(on either of my machines). I can use mozilla-0.9.8 just fine.
>
>There were other rep
I'm one of the people who has not been able to get mozilla-0.9.9 running
(on either of my machines). I can use mozilla-0.9.8 just fine.
There were other reports of problems on the mailing lists, and Masanori
decided to stick with 0.9.8 for the fink 0.4.0 release.
-- Dave
Thanks that fixed it, you were right, I wonder why it was owned by root.
0.9.9 works perfectly now other then the ruff fonts, not mozilla's fault I
don't think.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The problem was that root owns ~/.mozilla
¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,
Justin F. Hallett - S
The problem was that root owns ~/.mozilla
On Friday, April 12, 2002, at 01:14 PM, Justin Hallett wrote:
> I don't even get anything on my display, just a pause the Gdk-WARNING
> and
> then my prompt again. Here is the gdb thing thought ther eis no bt
> cause
> the program just exits and doesn
I don't even get anything on my display, just a pause the Gdk-WARNING and
then my prompt again. Here is the gdb thing thought ther eis no bt cause
the program just exits and doesn't give me any msgs.
---
Reading symbols for shared libraries .. done
(gdb) run
Starting program: /sw/lib/mozilla/mo
Reinstalling the December 2001 Developer Tools, and asking fink
to rebuild mozilla, did the trick on the remaining computer where it
did not install before.
===
Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics;
US mail: 9432 Boelter Hall, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1554
phon
Hou much stack size did you need?
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:27:12 +
Finlay Dobbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah... Need to make the stack a bit bigger. Heh.
>
> Can we increase the stack size programmatically like someone did for
> another package a little while back? :-)
>
--
Masanori S
36 matches
Mail list logo
