On 2009-01-20, Paul Hartman wrote:
> Maybe a compromise would be a short "you should do the following steps
> now" message suffixed with a "for more information, follow this link
> (to a bug/forum post) that explains why".
I filed the bug yesterday using the original wording with the
first sugge
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Stroller
wrote:
>
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 20:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-19, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>>
>>> I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is
>>> somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the
>>> (admit
On 19 Jan 2009, at 20:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-01-19, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is
somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the
(admittedly repetitive) original wording makes it very clear what
must
On 2009-01-19, Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is
> somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the
> (admittedly repetitive) original wording makes it very clear what must
> be done and gives some idea of what caused the
At Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:39:13 + Stroller
wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2009, at 16:59, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Someone should file a bug to have the message changed to something
>>> clearer.
>>
>> I'd be happy to do that. Is the following correct?
>>
>> The UI and rendering libraries that wer
On 19 Jan 2009, at 16:59, Grant Edwards wrote:
...
Someone should file a bug to have the message changed to something
clearer.
I'd be happy to do that. Is the following correct?
The UI and rendering libraries that were part of the
mozilla-firefox 2.x package have been split from the mozi
On Monday 19 January 2009 18:59:36 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-01-19, Paul Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
> >> compile, if after inst
On 2009-01-19, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
>> compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some
>> blockers, please ad
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
> compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some
> blockers, please add 'xulrunner' to your USE-flags.
>
On Monday 19 January 2009 06:32:00 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > This has now been fixed, the engine is now in a package called
> > xulrunner which firefox builds against. Other apps also need
> > xulrunner, but if you keep "USE=firefox" intact those apps
> > will pull in all of firefox-2 just to get ge
In ,
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> But, I stand by my assertion that give just the message very many
> people are going to figure out that it means you need to replace the
> "firefox" use flag with the "xulrunner" use flag so that apps will
> build against firefox
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> Now I'm confused. I thought xulrunner was the user-interface
> engine rather than the rendering engine.
>
>
Somewhat on topic here. I use Seamonkey for my browser. Should I use
xulrunner too? It is disabled right now but do I need to turn it on?
Just curious.
Dale
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-01-19, Dale wrote:
>
>
>>> Try looking through (most recent, I believe - Jan 10) 'Trouble with
>>> portage' thread, started by econti with answers from AllenJB.
>>>
>> I would add in xulrunner if you can search the body of the message
>> instead of just the
On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some
blockers, please add 'xulrunner' to your USE-flags.
Does anybody have idea what the above sentence is trying to sa
On 2009-01-19, Dale wrote:
>> Try looking through (most recent, I believe - Jan 10) 'Trouble with
>> portage' thread, started by econti with answers from AllenJB.
>
> I would add in xulrunner if you can search the body of the message
> instead of just the subject line. I keep mine local and Seam
On 2009-01-18, Mike Kazantsev wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:03:36 + (UTC)
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> Do we get any clues as to what to search for? I searched back a
>> few weeks looking for subject lines containing "firefox" and
>> didn't find anything relevent.
>
> Try looking through (mo
Mike Kazantsev wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:03:36 + (UTC)
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>
>> Do we get any clues as to what to search for? I searched back a
>> few weeks looking for subject lines containing "firefox" and
>> didn't find anything relevent.
>>
>
> Try looking through (most
On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:44:40 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:02:10 Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> I just build firefox and noticed the following warning in the
> >> ebuild output, and I'm a bit baffled by the grammar:
> >>
> >> All
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:03:36 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards wrote:
> Do we get any clues as to what to search for? I searched back a
> few weeks looking for subject lines containing "firefox" and
> didn't find anything relevent.
Try looking through (most recent, I believe - Jan 10) 'Trouble with
port
On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
>> compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some
>> blockers, please add 'xulrunner' to your USE-flags.
>>
>> Does anybody have idea what the above sentence is trying to say?
>
> It'
On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:02:10 Grant Edwards wrote:
>> I just build firefox and noticed the following warning in the
>> ebuild output, and I'm a bit baffled by the grammar:
>>
>> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't
>> compile, if
21 matches
Mail list logo
