Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:43:30 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reporting problems with Firefox (?) Message-ID: <1182440610.58628.8.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <61480.1182415472@monkeys.com> References: <61480.1182415472@monkeys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-DvBhrpJkxZa0L7WoMZL0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 01:44 -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <1182408338.68646.8.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>, you wrote: >=20 > >Debugging is the only way to go as I cannot reproduce this problem ,and > >you are the only one complaining of it. That said, you might try > >www/firefox (which is Firefox 2.0). >=20 > Begging yourt pardon, but that does not seem to be the case, actually. >=20 > In the /usr/ports tree that was distributed with 6.2-RELEASE (which is > what I am runing, and what I just installed) the Makefile within the > www/firefox directory makes it abundantly clear that doing a "make" in > that directory will only get me another (probably equally broken) copy > of Firefox 1.5.0.8. >=20 > So what should I do? Download a new /usr/ports tree and then go into > www/firefox and do a build? You should get a new ports tree, and follow all relevant steps in /usr/ports/UPDATING to upgrade all installed packages from their ports. >=20 > >> I don't remember ever installing anything from the /usr/ports tree for= th=3D > >is. > >>=3D20 > >> I believe that I just pulled the pre-compiled package "firefox-1.5.0.8= ,1" > >> off of the install CDs. Anyway, in /var/db/pkg I do see an entrit cal= led > >> firefox-1.5.0.8,1. > > > >Try using ports instead of packages. >=20 > See above. The /usr/ports tree that was distributed with 6.2-RELEASE con= tains > the same versions of stuff as are in the pre-compiled packages. >=20 > >>=3D20 > >> OK, so let's say that I want to try the linux-firefox version. I must > >> ask this: Do I first need to replace all of the X11 related stuff, i.= e. > >> "upgrade" from X.org 6.9.0 to X.org 7.2 first? > > > >You definitely should upgrade all your ports before reporting problems. >=20 > Yeabut is X11 considered part of "ports"? Yes. >=20 > That's what I am asking, and what I would like somebody to help me to > understand. (Please forgive my abundant ignorance and please do enlighte= n > me.) >=20 > I thought that X11 was _special_ and that it was more of an intergral par= t > of the OS. No? Just another "port"? X.Org is a meta-port that builds hundreds of other ports (just like GNOME). If you upgrade, you need to be aware of the special instructions in /usr/ports/UPDATING. Joe --=20 PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc --=-DvBhrpJkxZa0L7WoMZL0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGepyhb2iPiv4Uz4cRAhtHAJ44sC6vXmaKpgd0RMszSdzXVJFzWgCeLh64 QRhWlQ4KKvlMM3v27qain9M= =TYZt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DvBhrpJkxZa0L7WoMZL0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1182440610.58628.8.camel>