On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:57:57 -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> I suspect the real concern is not that the upgrade itself will
> wreck something, but that the upgraded FF may do something odd
> the first time it is fired up :(
That's possible. At least, I don't think FF 3.x -> 3.y will
have suc
Chad Perrin wrote:
> I seem to have unsubscribed from freebsd-ports@ a while ago, so I can't
> just respond in-thread to the "www/firefox35 coredumps" discussion there.
> Would it be better for me to start a new thread on freebsd-ports@ rather
> than continue discussing it here?
I would recommend
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:06:58PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
>
> Ok, now this seems to be a problem with libpthread-stuff. The problem
> only exists in 6.x. Sorry that I did not mention that earlier, but it
> just crossed my mind right now... However, someone is working at it.
> He also mentio
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:53:58PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now this is strange... it should be available. See the sem(4) manpage.
> > > > No idea how to help fro
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:53:58PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > >
> > > Now this is strange... it should be available. See the sem(4) manpage.
> > > No idea how to help from this point except to advice y
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> >
> > Now this is strange... it should be available. See the sem(4) manpage.
> > No idea how to help from this point except to advice you to rebuild
> > your kernel and see if the module becomes available. It i
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:48:27PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
>
> Now this is strange... it should be available. See the sem(4) manpage.
> No idea how to help from this point except to advice you to rebuild
> your kernel and see if the module becomes available. It is definitely
> needed for run
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:28:41PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >
> > > # kldload sem
> > > kldload: can't load sem: No such file or directory
> > >
> > > # locate sem.ko
> > > /boot/kernel/sysvsem.ko
> > > /boot/kernel.GENERIC/
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:28:41PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > # kldload sem
> > kldload: can't load sem: No such file or directory
> >
> > # locate sem.ko
> > /boot/kernel/sysvsem.ko
> > /boot/kernel.GENERIC/sysvsem.ko
> > /boot/kernel.OPT_K
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay -- where do I get the "sem" kernel module?
> >
> > It is included in FreeBSD, just type 'kldload sem' to load it. If you
> > want to have loaded it automatically on boot,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > Okay -- where do I get the "sem" kernel module?
>
> It is included in FreeBSD, just type 'kldload sem' to load it. If you
> want to have loaded it automatically on boot, add the following to
> your /boot
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:02:01PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> > Chad Perrin wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I haven't gotten far enough to see if anything was lost,
> > > because now Firefox 3.5.x won't start:
> > >
> > > Fatal error 'Recurse on a private mutex.' a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:02:01PM +0200, Frank Steinborn wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, I haven't gotten far enough to see if anything was lost,
> > because now Firefox 3.5.x won't start:
> >
> > Fatal error 'Recurse on a private mutex.' at line 986 in file
> > /usr/s
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:57:57AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the real concern is not that the upgrade itself will
> > wreck something, but that the upgraded FF may do something odd
> > the first time it is fired up :(
>
> That's a pretty good guess
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:57:57AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>
> I suspect the real concern is not that the upgrade itself will
> wreck something, but that the upgraded FF may do something odd
> the first time it is fired up :(
That's a pretty good guess.
>
> One hopes that backing u
Chad Perrin wrote:
Do you know this from personal experience, or are you just assuming that
I won't pull out all my hair five seconds after I discover it deleted a
bunch of shit I wanted to keep?
portupgrade -o www/firefox35 -f firefox-3.0.X
worked for me, no problems. You'll have to reins
> > So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without
> > running the risk of losing everything (bookmarks, a 100-tab
> > session, et cetera)?
>
> Well, I don't think those settings get altered in any way -
> they do not reside in the port's directories (where it will
> be installed into).
On Friday 17 July 2009 16:28:22 Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:37 -0600, Chad Perrin
wrote:
> > > > So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 withou
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:28:22AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > Do you know this from personal experience, or are you just assuming that
> > I won't pull out all my hair five seconds after I discover it deleted a
> > bunch of shit I wan
Hi,
On 18 July 2009 am 08:07:36 Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:37 -0600, Chad Perrin
wrote:
> > > So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without
> >
> > No idea. Anyway, user's files won't be touched.
>
>
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:37 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without running the
> > > risk of losing everything (bookmarks, a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 01:43:47AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:37 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without running the
> > risk of losing everything (bookmarks, a 100-tab session, et cetera)?
>
> Well, I don't think those se
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:37 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without running the
> risk of losing everything (bookmarks, a 100-tab session, et cetera)?
Well, I don't think those settings get altered in any way - they do not
reside in the port's direc
So . . . how do I upgrade Firefox from 3.0 to 3.5 without running the
risk of losing everything (bookmarks, a 100-tab session, et cetera)? For
some reason, it seems that the upgrade has to be made by deleting 3.0 and
installing 3.5 afterward. What's up with that?
--
Chad Perrin [ original conte
24 matches
Mail list logo
