[gentoo-user] Firefox

[gentoo-user] Firefox

[Daniel D Jones]

I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07.  I 
added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which 
resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the 1.5 
release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually 
installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage at 
some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Beau E. Cox]

On Saturday 04 February 2006 03:09 am, Daniel D Jones wrote:
> I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07. 
> I added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which
> resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the
> 1.5 release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually
> installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage at
> some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.

I think I read that Deer Park is the name for Firefox that is used
to get an GPL-type liscense - but is really Firefox.

I have several packages that I maintain 'manually' (outside of portage)
and I have experienced no portage 'confusion', i.e. Apache 2.2, mod_perl,
mysql-5.1.5-alpha, etc. I install them to /usr/local and portage
doesn't care.

-- 
Aloha => Beau;

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Daniel D Jones]

On Saturday 04 February 2006 08:26, Beau E. Cox wrote:
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 03:09 am, Daniel D Jones wrote:
> > I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07.
> > I added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which
> > resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the
> > 1.5 release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually
> > installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage
> > at some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> I think I read that Deer Park is the name for Firefox that is used
> to get an GPL-type liscense - but is really Firefox.

I'm aware that Deer Park IS Firefox but my understanding was that Deer Park 
was a nightly release build and not the official 1.5 release.  I thought it 
was the equivalent of grabbing the most recent source (at the time the 
package was created) from CVS rather than getting the official release 
source.  Am I confused?

Part of the issue is that several of my extensions complained that they were 
only compatible with Firefox 0.? - 1.5 when I restarted Firefox.  

> I have several packages that I maintain 'manually' (outside of portage)
> and I have experienced no portage 'confusion', i.e. Apache 2.2, mod_perl,
> mysql-5.1.5-alpha, etc. I install them to /usr/local and portage
> doesn't care.

Cool!  I'll look into that.

And thanks to everyone who replied.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Holly Bostick]

Daniel D Jones schreef:
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 08:26, Beau E. Cox wrote:
>> On Saturday 04 February 2006 03:09 am, Daniel D Jones wrote:
>>> I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07.
>>> I added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which
>>> resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the
>>> 1.5 release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually
>>> installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage
>>> at some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.
>> I think I read that Deer Park is the name for Firefox that is used
>> to get an GPL-type liscense - but is really Firefox.
> 
> I'm aware that Deer Park IS Firefox but my understanding was that Deer Park 
> was a nightly release build and not the official 1.5 release.  I thought it 
> was the equivalent of grabbing the most recent source (at the time the 
> package was created) from CVS rather than getting the official release 
> source.  Am I confused?

Yes, you are. Have a look at the ebuild:
# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/www-client/mozilla-firefox/mozilla-firefox-1.5-r11.ebuild,v
1.1 2006/02/01 22:13:20 anarchy Exp $

unset ALLOWED_FLAGS  # stupid extra-functions.sh ... bug 49179
MOZ_FREETYPE2="no"   # Need to disable for newer .. remove here and in
mozconfig
                         # when older is removed from tree.
MOZ_PANGO="yes"      # Need to enable for newer .. remove here and in
mozconfig
                         # when older is removed from tree.

inherit flag-o-matic toolchain-funcs eutils mozconfig-2 mozilla-launcher
makeedit multilib fdo-mime mozextension autotools

LANGS="ar ca cs da de el en-GB es-AR es-ES fi fr ga-IE he hu it ja ko mk
nb-NO nl pl pt-BR ro ru sk sl sv-SE tr zh-CN zh-TW"
SHORTLANGS="es-ES ga-IE nb-NO sv-SE"
PVER="1.4"

DESCRIPTION="Firefox Web Browser"
HOMEPAGE="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/"
==>
SRC_URI="ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/${PV}/source/firefox-${PV}-source.tar.bz2

As you see, the source tarball is being downloaded from the releases
folder of Mozilla.org's ftp, not any CVS or nightly build folder.

Ebuilds from development trees such as CVS or "nightlies" are clearly so
marked in their title, if they exist.

For example, I use an ebuild for Krusader (provided by on the Homepage)
which builds from the project's CVS tree, and it is rightfully called
"krusader-cvs" rather than the normal "krusader" ebuild provided by
Portage.

If an ebuild doesn't say it's compiling from CVS, it isn't. And of
course, you can always just open it in a text editor and /look/...

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Daniel D Jones]

On Saturday 04 February 2006 11:37, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Daniel D Jones schreef:
> > I'm aware that Deer Park IS Firefox but my understanding was that Deer
> > Park was a nightly release build and not the official 1.5 release.  I
> > thought it was the equivalent of grabbing the most recent source (at the
> > time the package was created) from CVS rather than getting the official
> > release source.  Am I confused?
>
> Yes, you are. Have a look at the ebuild:
> # $Header:
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/www-client/mozilla-firefox/mozilla-firefox-1.5-r11.
>ebuild,v 1.1 2006/02/01 22:13:20 anarchy Exp $
...
> As you see, the source tarball is being downloaded from the releases
> folder of Mozilla.org's ftp, not any CVS or nightly build folder.
>
> Ebuilds from development trees such as CVS or "nightlies" are clearly so
> marked in their title, if they exist.
>
> For example, I use an ebuild for Krusader (provided by on the Homepage)
> which builds from the project's CVS tree, and it is rightfully called
> "krusader-cvs" rather than the normal "krusader" ebuild provided by
> Portage.

Thanks for the info and for clearing up my confusion.

> If an ebuild doesn't say it's compiling from CVS, it isn't. And of
> course, you can always just open it in a text editor and /look/...

I'm still learning how Portage works.  I wasn't aware that ebuilds were that 
straightforward.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Chan Min Wai]

Daniel D Jones wrote:
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 11:37, Holly Bostick wrote:
>   
>> Daniel D Jones schreef:
>>     
>>> I'm aware that Deer Park IS Firefox but my understanding was that Deer
>>> Park was a nightly release build and not the official 1.5 release.  I
>>> thought it was the equivalent of grabbing the most recent source (at the
>>> time the package was created) from CVS rather than getting the official
>>> release source.  Am I confused?
>>>       
>> Yes, you are. Have a look at the ebuild:
>> # $Header:
>> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/www-client/mozilla-firefox/mozilla-firefox-1.5-r11.
>> ebuild,v 1.1 2006/02/01 22:13:20 anarchy Exp $
>>     
> ...
>   
>> As you see, the source tarball is being downloaded from the releases
>> folder of Mozilla.org's ftp, not any CVS or nightly build folder.
>>
>> Ebuilds from development trees such as CVS or "nightlies" are clearly so
>> marked in their title, if they exist.
>>
>> For example, I use an ebuild for Krusader (provided by on the Homepage)
>> which builds from the project's CVS tree, and it is rightfully called
>> "krusader-cvs" rather than the normal "krusader" ebuild provided by
>> Portage.
>>     
>
> Thanks for the info and for clearing up my confusion.
>
>   
>> If an ebuild doesn't say it's compiling from CVS, it isn't. And of
>> course, you can always just open it in a text editor and /look/...
>>     
>
> I'm still learning how Portage works.  I wasn't aware that ebuilds were that 
> straightforward.
>
>   

After reading all the thread I only confused on one thing.

Why The [Account Setting] And [Preference] is Under the [Edit] Menu 
Where on the windows build it is under the [Tools] Menu.


Any Idea?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Firefox

[Simon Kellett]

Chan Min Wai <dcmwai@pl.jaring.my> writes:

> Why The [Account Setting] And [Preference] is Under the [Edit] Menu
> Where on the windows build it is under the [Tools] Menu.
>
> Any Idea?

It is the difference between what someone considers "standard" for
Windows vs. Unix. (And it annoys me as I use Windows at work, and Linux
at home.)

-- 
Simon Kellett,        |   Gentoo Linux, Fvwm, Firefox 
Darmstadt, Germany    |              Xemacs, Vm, Gnus

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox

[Roy Wright]

Simon Kellett wrote:

>Chan Min Wai <dcmwai@pl.jaring.my> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Why The [Account Setting] And [Preference] is Under the [Edit] Menu
>>Where on the windows build it is under the [Tools] Menu.
>>
>>Any Idea?
>>    
>>
>
>It is the difference between what someone considers "standard" for
>Windows vs. Unix. (And it annoys me as I use Windows at work, and Linux
>at home.)
>
>  
>
<g>I believe Netscape (and even Mosaic?) used the [Edit] menu.  Then 
along came
MS and just to be different chose to use the [Tools] menu.  Now firefox 
is converting
all of the IE users back to the fold, but we all know how simple minded 
windows
folks are so can't confuse them too much.  Therefore the windows version 
is under
the [Tools] menu.  Now the unix folks have never had to deal with IE so 
they've
been blessed all along with the preference being where it belongs under 
the [Edit]
menu.</g>

Now personally I'd love to see the windows version have an option to use 
normal
menus vs. ie-like menus.  Have the windows build be default ie-like for 
a release
or two, then switch the default to where it belongs...

Have fun,
Roy
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Holly Bostick]

Daniel D Jones schreef:
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 11:37, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>> If an ebuild doesn't say it's compiling from CVS, it isn't. And of 
>> course, you can always just open it in a text editor and /look/...
>> 
> 
> I'm still learning how Portage works.  I wasn't aware that ebuilds 
> were that straightforward.

Well, in some respects they aren't, insofar as you kinda need to be
familiar with the compilation process of the program under
consideration, on the one hand (for example, the specific dependencies,
and the configuration options for it, which obviously vary from
application to application), and Gentoo conventions on the other hand
(such as the variables used to specify things like version number and
install directory and the like).

But in the sense that they are ultimately just scripts, and scripts are
ultimately just text, which are quite understandable if you know the
"language" they're written in, yes, ebuilds are very much "that
straightforward". Certainly straightforward enough even for the
completely untutored to be able to see things like where the source
is being downloaded from (the project site, or a gentoo mirror or
someplace else), and what options the application is being configured
with (or not), and how the USE flags available relate to the configure
options available to the application.

That's what makes Gentoo so cool-- or at least one of the big things-- *I*
can write an ebuild, at need, and I can't code my way out of a paper
bag. A *wet* paper bag. Admittedly, my skills only really reach (at this
time) to modifying existing ebuilds in relatively simple ways (version
bumps and "switching" annoying dependencies to separate-but-equal ones),
but I can learn more via the docs when I want to try something more
complex.  I can even submit modified or new ebuilds on b.g.o for
submission into Portage (and have done, actually).

It's just me (same old me), but I can provide development services even
now, as I am (which is way more than anyone ever 'asked' of me under
previous distros, or under Windows, and certainly more than I ever knew
I was capable of), and I can fairly easily learn enough to do more, if I so
choose, by reading the Development docs on the main site, which will
tell you all you need to know about getting started with ebuilds.

Everybody can really help, in a truly functional way, and that's because
ebuilds *are* in that sense simple enough that they give you a "way in",
if you see what I mean.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Andrew Gaydenko]

"Deer Park" is Firefox-1.5's name :-)

======= On Saturday 04 February 2006 16:09, Daniel D Jones wrote: =======
I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07.  I 
added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which 
resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the 1.5 
release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually 
installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage at 
some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Holly Bostick]

Daniel D Jones schreef:
> I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 
> 1.07.  I added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords
>  file, which resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want
> Deer Park, just the 1.5 release version.

The version labelled as Deer Park under Gentoo *is* the 1.5 release
version, to the best of my knowledge.

As I understand it, there is a licensing requirement from the Mozilla
group that specifies that compiled versions provided by anyone other
than Mozilla.org cannot use the 'official' branding. Therefore, the
release displays "Deer Park" but is otherwise identical (built from the
same source release tarball as the Mozilla.org compiled release, just
not built by Mozila.org, but by you or the Gentoo devs).

Apparently you can 'fix' this (if it must be fixed) by activating the
./configure switch --enable-official-branding. You can of course do this
by copying the current ebuild to your PORTDIR_OVERLAY, making the
adjustment, and compiling that instead, or by --as you said-- installing
or compiling the official Mozilla binary or source from the Mozilla.org
site.

Check the forums, I believe that that's where I discovered what
information I know about this issue.

> I've considered downloading the source and manually installing but 
> I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage at some 
> point.  Thanks for any suggestions.

That's what Portage overlay directories are for; to do something like
this without confusing Portage. Self-regulating, of course-- if the
issue is not important enough to the user to make it worth their while
to learn how to set up an overlay, and how to populate it with the
relevant ebuilds (especially if the relevant ebuild must be created from
scratch rather than just adjusted), then the issue is not necessarily
important enough to  warrant "solving", offering the user an opportunity
to re-evaluate the severity  of the issue. As with all things Gentoo,
it's your choice as to how you want to handle it.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Scott Stoddard]

Daniel D Jones wrote:
> I'd like to run Firefox 1.5.  The latest stable build appears to be 1.07.  I 
> added ww-client/mozilla-firefox ~x86 to my package.keywords file, which 
> resulted in Deer Park being installed.  I don't want Deer Park, just the 1.5 
> release version.  I've considered downloading the source and manually 
> installing but I'd prefer not to do something which may confuse portage at 
> some point.  Thanks for any suggestions.
> 

No fear, you have firefox 1.5.  Anarchy (dev responsible for the ebuilds 
for most mozilla stuff) has been running into problems re-titling it, 
but it is definitely 1.5

(Incidentally, the ebuild gives you this information when you emerge it.)

Scott.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Firefox

[Daniel D Jones]

Can anyone explain why it takes so long for Firefox-bin to be unmasked?  
That's not intended to be a rant or finger-pointing, but a serious question.  I 
can certainly understand the issues involved with ensuring that a complex 
package compiles on various systems with all sorts of different drivers and 
set-ups.  But the -bin package is a precompiled binary that's merely 
installed.  It seems like it should be pretty simple and straightforward to 
ensure that it works and unmask it.

Firefox just released 5.0 and announced that all development, including bug 
fixes and security updates, had halted on 4.0.  They plan to hold to similar 
short-release cycles in the future.  It's been four months since 4.0 was 
released and it's still masked.  If future releases see similar delays in 
unmasking, Gentoo users will soon be two or three versions behind.  We'll be 
forced to either manually install, unmask the masked package, or run a 
potentially buggy, insecure version.  Any insight into the delay of unmasking 
the binary verion that would help me understand the issue greatly appreciated.

-- 
"It seems to me that it is madder never to abandon one's self than often to be 
infatuated; better to be wounded, a captive and a slave, than always to walk 
in armor." - Margaret Fuller

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox

[Albert Hopkins]

On Monday, June 27 at 19:52 (-0400), Daniel D Jones said:

> Can anyone explain why it takes so long for Firefox-bin to be unmasked?  
[etc.]

Have you gone to bugs.gentoo.org and submitted a stabilization request?