glibc in mozilla 1.4.x and other new builds
mle
I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
"very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3 or
2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a plan to
make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for the freaks
who update their System every 6 months.
Since AOL and Microsoft solved their License Problems for Explorer I can
observe that new Mozilla Version becomes harder and harder to use:
On my old Linux box they don't work at all,
And on windows the Java Plugin don't work without tricks:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211226.
A simple solution is a completely static compiled mozilla version, this
is not very nice but it works on any old system. Why does this not happen?
Kind regards
mle
Andrew Schultz
> Hello,
>
> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>
> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
>
> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
> most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3 or
> 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a plan to
I don't know any Mozilla builds that require 2.3. Firebird/Thunderbird might be
a different story.
> A simple solution is a completely static compiled mozilla version, this
> is not very nice but it works on any old system. Why does this not happen?
Because a completely staticly compiled Mozilla would be huge.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Schultz | The views expressed might
ajsc...@eos.ncsu.edu | not represent those of NCSU.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ajschult/ | They are however, correct.
mle
> mle wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
>> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>>
>> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
>>
>> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
>> most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3
>> or 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a
>> plan to
>
> I don't know any Mozilla builds that require 2.3. Firebird/Thunderbird
> might be a different story.
OK, but assuming the Linux System has glibc 2.2.4 exlcudes systems older
then 2 years; and for Windows 95 Mozilla works still very good:
Windows 95 is 8 years old.
>
>> A simple solution is a completely static compiled mozilla version, this
>> is not very nice but it works on any old system. Why does this not
>> happen?
>
> Because a completely staticly compiled Mozilla would be huge.
For opera the differnece between the dynmic and the static linked version
are 1.6 MB; why is mozilla so much bigger (how much?). And:
I prefere big working Mozilla more then a small not-working Mozilla;
what is wrong with me? Or is something wrong with the Mozilla
developement?
mle
Nicolas Pioch
> OK, but assuming the Linux System has glibc 2.2.4 exlcudes systems older
> then 2 years; and for Windows 95 Mozilla works still very good:
> Windows 95 is 8 years old.
Well, you can blame Microsoft for a lot of things, but one thing they do
well is to keep their OS compatible.
The problem looks Linux-only really. Reading all the posts here, most
issues discussed are really Linux-specific on this newsgroup, such as
glibc/libc/XFree nightmares, incompatible packaging formats, incoherent
dependancies, etc.
That's why I was suggesting the creation of a sub-newsgroup, such as
netscape.public.mozilla.unix.linux recently, where all this
Linux-centric stuff could be deported.
There aren't that many issues on other Unix variants I know of (or at
least one order of magnitude less), whether closed-source such as
Solaris, or open-source such as *BSD. Overall it gives an immature,
overly complex opinion of Linux as a whole.
(I'd like to be proven wrong)
-- N.
Christopher Seawood
> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
You will need to find someone to build and contribute a compatible
binary release for you. The mozilla.org (Netscape) build machines were
upgraded earlier this year from RedHat 6.2 to RedHat 7.2. That's why
the glibc requirement changed. I do not know of any plans to revert the
build machines.
> Now my question, exists a plan to
> make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for the freaks
> who update their System every 6 months.
I think the plan is to point out that this *is* an open source project
and *anyone* can produce builds for 'regular' users. In fact, the OS
vendors (Red Hat/SuSE/etc) already do. So you can/should ask your
vendor about updated versions of the software they distributed or take
advantage of the fact that it's open source and compile it yourself
(which can be non-trivial if you're not a developer).
> A simple solution is a completely static compiled mozilla version, this
> is not very nice but it works on any old system. Why does this not happen?
We do not support a traditional static build and our current
psuedo-static build option was mostly an afterthought. See
http://www.mozilla.org/build/static-build.html .
- cls
mle
> mle wrote:
>> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
>> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>
> You will need to find someone to build and contribute a compatible
> binary release for you. The mozilla.org (Netscape) build machines were
> upgraded earlier this year from RedHat 6.2 to RedHat 7.2. That's why
> the glibc requirement changed. I do not know of any plans to revert the
> build machines.
I'm nearly absolute sure that you can link on a new glibc system
against an old glibc, but that is not my point:
>
>> Now my question, exists a plan to
>> make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for the
>> freaks who update their System every 6 months.
>
> I think the plan is to point out that this *is* an open source project
> and *anyone* can produce builds for 'regular' users. In fact, the OS
> vendors (Red Hat/SuSE/etc) already do. So you can/should ask your
> vendor about updated versions of the software they distributed or take
> advantage of the fact that it's open source and compile it yourself
> (which can be non-trivial if you're not a developer).
My point is: why does mozilla.org limit their audience without need - you
say other people can build mozilla against older glibc!
I think the "optimized builds should become done by other people, the
default compilation should work on all Linux versions (except hardware
versions).
That is the way of serious software vendors like blackdown JDKs, opera
browser, sun JDK.
>
>> A simple solution is a completely static compiled mozilla version, this
>> is not very nice but it works on any old system. Why does this not
>> happen?
>
> We do not support a traditional static build and our current
> psuedo-static build option was mostly an afterthought. See
> http://www.mozilla.org/build/static-build.html .
I read it and think the Mozilla static build is more a cosmetic
operation, because the system libraries are excluded: And is no help for
me.
So I think body has answer my question, all I see are standard arguments
for a wrong decission.
>
> - cls
>
mle
Ingo Frommholz
mle wrote:
> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>
> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
>
> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
> most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3 or
> 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a plan to
> make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for the freaks
> who update their System every 6 months.
First of all I would be interested if the binaries compiled for gcc 3.x are
really incompatible with older versions. I guess so, but I can't show it any
more, since I've set up a new system recently. But I faced the same problem
as you, and I was lucky to get mozilla 1.4 compile with SuSE 7.1 (but this
could be due to the fact that I updated some libraries from time to time).
As I explained in another thread, I also managed to compile 1.5b with 7.1,
but had trouble running it. So for mozilla 1.4 you might try compiling the
source, which consists of the usual configure/make/make install steps. Well,
good luck :-).
Regards,
Ingo
--
Ingo Frommholz PGP public keys on homepage
in...@frommholz.org http://www.frommholz.org/
Worlds are conquered, galaxies destroyed -- but a woman is always a
woman. (Kirk, "Conscience of the King", stardate unknown)
mle
> Hi,
>
> mle wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
>> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>>
>> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
>>
>> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
>> most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3
>> or 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a
>> plan to make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for
>> the freaks who update their System every 6 months.
>
> First of all I would be interested if the binaries compiled for gcc 3.x
> are really incompatible with older versions. I guess so, but I can't
> show it any more, since I've set up a new system recently. But I faced
> the same problem as you, and I was lucky to get mozilla 1.4 compile with
> SuSE 7.1 (but this could be due to the fact that I updated some
> libraries from time to time). As I explained in another thread, I also
> managed to compile 1.5b with 7.1, but had trouble running it. So for
> mozilla 1.4 you might try compiling the source, which consists of the
> usual configure/make/make install steps. Well, good luck :-).
>
Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is (see
my other psotings):
Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
And there are many other browser for Linux which are much easier to use
Konquere, opera, Mozilla 1.3.1 (for the next year).
By the way I compiled many things for Linux Kernel 2.4.19 mysql, elink,
gtk2.2.2, ... . And that is not that easy, of course it is extremly easy
if everything goes as expect, but that is nearly never the case (missing
libraries,...). I'm not intrested to fight for an internet browser!!!!
This is the reason why I use Linux (after a hard figth I win always)
and I don't use Windows (in importent situations the hardest fight fails
until a patch exist in the internet).
And for the same reason I tell all my friends: "Don't use Linux; its a
real pain", because they can't fight hard and a windows patch is allways
very easy to install.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ingo
>
Regards
mle
Jerry Talkington
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +0200, Ingo Frommholz wrote:
> > mle wrote:
> >
> >> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> >> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
> >>
> >> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
The system requirements cleary state that glibc 2.2.4 is required.
Waiting for a new version to be compatible with an older library is
unproductive, to say the least.
If 1.3.1 still works, then use that.
> >>
> >> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or so)
> >> most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc 2.2.3
> >> or 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question, exists a
> >> plan to make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and not only for
> >> the freaks who update their System every 6 months.
The gcc version isn't making it incompatible, it's the glibc version.
glibc 2.2.4 was released 2 years ago. If you want new features, you
have to be willing to use a system that supports newer features.
> >
> > First of all I would be interested if the binaries compiled for gcc 3.x
> > are really incompatible with older versions. I guess so, but I can't
Per above, it's the glibc version, no the gcc version.
> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is (see
> my other psotings):
> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
Who says that there isn't any need? How far back do you expect new
software to support old systems? Should we ensure that it runs
flawlessly on Windows 3.1?
BTW, you don't need to build mozilla from source, if you update glibc.
There may be an updated package from SuSe, or you might have to build it
from scratch.
> And there are many other browser for Linux which are much easier to use
> Konquere, opera, Mozilla 1.3.1 (for the next year).
>
> By the way I compiled many things for Linux Kernel 2.4.19 mysql, elink,
> gtk2.2.2, ... . And that is not that easy, of course it is extremly easy
> if everything goes as expect, but that is nearly never the case (missing
> libraries,...). I'm not intrested to fight for an internet browser!!!!
> This is the reason why I use Linux (after a hard figth I win always)
> and I don't use Windows (in importent situations the hardest fight fails
> until a patch exist in the internet).
> And for the same reason I tell all my friends: "Don't use Linux; its a
> real pain", because they can't fight hard and a windows patch is allways
> very easy to install.
So basically you are saying that 1) You don't want to manually upgrade
your system, and 2) you don't want to bother with buying upgrades from
the vendor.
Getting vendor patches and upgrades are just as easy with Linux as they
are with Windows, but you do have to pay for them. However, unlike with
Windows, you have a choice to build it your self.
Linux lets you have your cake, and eat it too. You just have to know
how to bake, or be willing to pay a baker to do it for you.
--
GPG public key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9D5B8762
mle
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 04:36:02PM +0200, mle wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +0200, Ingo Frommholz wrote:
>> > mle wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
>> >> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
>> >>
>> >> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
>
> The system requirements cleary state that glibc 2.2.4 is required.
> Waiting for a new version to be compatible with an older library is
> unproductive, to say the least.
>
> If 1.3.1 still works, then use that.
That is what I do, but how to get updates? I will use konquereor in the
future.
>
>
>> >> Since mozilla (and related) software is compiled with gcc 3.2 (or
>> >> so) most binaries don't work on my system, because the needed glibc
>> >> 2.2.3 or 2.2.4 and some nightly builds need 2.3. Now my question,
>> >> exists a plan to make mozilla useable for regular Linux Users and
>> >> not only for the freaks who update their System every 6 months.
>
> The gcc version isn't making it incompatible, it's the glibc version.
> glibc 2.2.4 was released 2 years ago. If you want new features, you
> have to be willing to use a system that supports newer features.
I know that. You can read my other posting to that thread and you will
see it.
>
>
>> > First of all I would be interested if the binaries compiled for gcc
>> > 3.x are really incompatible with older versions. I guess so, but I
>> > can't
>
> Per above, it's the glibc version, no the gcc version.
>
>> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is
>> (see my other psotings):
>> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
>
> Who says that there isn't any need? How far back do you expect new
There is no need, because some people can compile it against older glibc
versions. But If you know a "must" for the new glibc version the YOU are
the first person which anwsers my question!!! Please fell free to tell
me... .
> software to support old systems? Should we ensure that it runs
> flawlessly on Windows 3.1?
You ensure that it works on Windows 95!! (8 Years!)
>
> BTW, you don't need to build mozilla from source, if you update glibc.
> There may be an updated package from SuSe, or you might have to build it
> from scratch.
I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!!
But for "fun" I downloaded glibc 2.2.5 or 222.6 or so (gnu.org complied
it) and started mozilla with ld manually. I hope that proves that I'm not
too stupid.
And SuSE don't offer an glibc update from 2.2.4 to 2.2.4 or better as far
as I know (and I searched for it --really)
>
>> And there are many other browser for Linux which are much easier to use
>> Konquere, opera, Mozilla 1.3.1 (for the next year).
>>
>> By the way I compiled many things for Linux Kernel 2.4.19 mysql, elink,
>> gtk2.2.2, ... . And that is not that easy, of course it is extremly
>> easy if everything goes as expect, but that is nearly never the case
>> (missing libraries,...). I'm not intrested to fight for an internet
>> browser!!!!
>> This is the reason why I use Linux (after a hard figth I win always)
>> and I don't use Windows (in importent situations the hardest fight
>> fails until a patch exist in the internet).
>> And for the same reason I tell all my friends: "Don't use Linux; its
>> a
>> real pain", because they can't fight hard and a windows patch is
>> allways very easy to install.
>
> So basically you are saying that 1) You don't want to manually upgrade
> your system, and 2) you don't want to bother with buying upgrades from
> the vendor.
You bark to the wrong tree: I Like Linux since many Years. I update my
system manually in many ways.
And I'm willing to spend money for an upgrade. BUT: My last "paied"
upgrade was a complete nightmare SuSE Linux 6.3 -> 7.2. So I consider it
for my new Athon 64 with Linux 2.6 in 1 or 2 years. And then I pray that
that Maschine works 3 or 4 years again.
>
> Getting vendor patches and upgrades are just as easy with Linux as they
> are with Windows, but you do have to pay for them. However, unlike with
> Windows, you have a choice to build it your self.
>
> Linux lets you have your cake, and eat it too. You just have to know
> how to bake, or be willing to pay a baker to do it for you.
>
This sentence makes me believe that you are a real Linux guru or a
complete Beginner. I you are a reall guru you should not assume that
everybody has yoru knowledge, and If you are a real beginer I have to say
that my Linux distribution is manully fine tuned on many edged (for
example: It's really hard to installate an SAP Demo System on a Linux box)
and I'm not intressted to loose this via a "payed upgrade" for Mozilla.
(my definiintion for beginner: Buy a distribution, let it install everything
automatical, and the you are happy)
After you hard attck on my opinion you should tell me for what the glibc
2.2.4 is needed in mozilla and firebird.
Kind Regrads
mle
Jerry Talkington
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 04:36:02PM +0200, mle wrote:
> >> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is
> >> (see my other psotings):
> >> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
> >
> > Who says that there isn't any need? How far back do you expect new
>
> There is no need, because some people can compile it against older glibc
> versions. But If you know a "must" for the new glibc version the YOU are
> the first person which anwsers my question!!! Please fell free to tell
> me... .
*I* don't know any specific reason for it to require a newer glibc. It
may work with an older version. But you can't expect the Mozilla
developers (most of which I believe are volunteers, since AOL laid off
all the moz developers,) to ensure compatability with every variation of
glibc that is out there. There has to be a minimum system requirement.
> > software to support old systems? Should we ensure that it runs
> > flawlessly on Windows 3.1?
>
> You ensure that it works on Windows 95!! (8 Years!)
That's because Windows hasn't had a major upgrade in core design since
then. Notice that MacOS 9 isn't supported any longer, since a
significant change in system design took place.
> >
> > BTW, you don't need to build mozilla from source, if you update glibc.
> > There may be an updated package from SuSe, or you might have to build it
> > from scratch.
>
> I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
> stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!!
> But for "fun" I downloaded glibc 2.2.5 or 222.6 or so (gnu.org complied
> it) and started mozilla with ld manually. I hope that proves that I'm not
> too stupid.
> And SuSE don't offer an glibc update from 2.2.4 to 2.2.4 or better as far
> as I know (and I searched for it --really)
Yeah, you don't want to just replace glibc, since it will break stuff if
not done properly.
> >
> > So basically you are saying that 1) You don't want to manually upgrade
> > your system, and 2) you don't want to bother with buying upgrades from
> > the vendor.
>
> You bark to the wrong tree: I Like Linux since many Years. I update my
> system manually in many ways.
> And I'm willing to spend money for an upgrade. BUT: My last "paied"
> upgrade was a complete nightmare SuSE Linux 6.3 -> 7.2. So I consider it
> for my new Athon 64 with Linux 2.6 in 1 or 2 years. And then I pray that
> that Maschine works 3 or 4 years again.
That sounds like a vendor issue then. I've used redhat for years, and
it works pretty good with upgrades and such.
> > Getting vendor patches and upgrades are just as easy with Linux as they
> > are with Windows, but you do have to pay for them. However, unlike with
> > Windows, you have a choice to build it your self.
> >
> > Linux lets you have your cake, and eat it too. You just have to know
> > how to bake, or be willing to pay a baker to do it for you.
> >
>
> This sentence makes me believe that you are a real Linux guru or a
> complete Beginner. I you are a reall guru you should not assume that
> everybody has yoru knowledge, and If you are a real beginer I have to say
> that my Linux distribution is manully fine tuned on many edged (for
> example: It's really hard to installate an SAP Demo System on a Linux box)
> and I'm not intressted to loose this via a "payed upgrade" for Mozilla.
> (my definiintion for beginner: Buy a distribution, let it install everything
> automatical, and the you are happy)
I've been using Linux on and off for almost 10 years now. When I first
started out, all I knew about computers was that Windows (3.11) sucked
(ok, that's an exageration, I knew my around Windows, but I still new it
sucked - and it was a Packard Bell to boot.)
> After you hard attck on my opinion you should tell me for what the glibc
> 2.2.4 is needed in mozilla and firebird.
My intent wasn't to attack you, just to say that you can't expect it to
be supported on every old platform infinitely. You always have the
option to compile it yourself. In fact, I have a script on my site that
I use to compile firebird nightlies, that could be tweaked to build the
suite:
http://smartasfuck.com/mozilla/
You'd have to tweak the .mozconfig . Typing about:buildconfig should
show you the options that were used to build the mozilla you currently
use.
Andrew Schultz
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
>>software to support old systems? Should we ensure that it runs
>>flawlessly on Windows 3.1?
>
>
> You ensure that it works on Windows 95!! (8 Years!)
Not really. Win95-specific bugs get little to no attention. Mozilla works in
Win95 mostly because it works in Win98.
> I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
> stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!!
I have done many glibc updates and nothing caught on fire. A Staticly linked
fileutils package comes in handy if things go south.
> After you hard attck on my opinion you should tell me for what the glibc
> 2.2.4 is needed in mozilla and firebird.
The build machines are running Red Hat 7.2, which has glibc-2.2.4, so the
resulting binary depends on glibc-2.2.4. Having the relatively recent distro
was necessary to get the build working properly with gcc32.
mle
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 08:12:48AM +0200, mle wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
>> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 04:36:02PM +0200, mle wrote:
>> >> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is
>> >> (see my other psotings):
>> >> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
>> >
>> > Who says that there isn't any need? How far back do you expect new
>>
>> There is no need, because some people can compile it against older
>> glibc versions. But If you know a "must" for the new glibc version the
>> YOU are the first person which anwsers my question!!! Please fell free
>> to tell me... .
>
> *I* don't know any specific reason for it to require a newer glibc. It
> may work with an older version. But you can't expect the Mozilla
> developers (most of which I believe are volunteers, since AOL laid off
> all the moz developers,)
And now mozilla becomes a playground for some freaks?
> to ensure compatability with every variation of
> glibc that is out there. There has to be a minimum system requirement.
Of course there has to be a minimum system requirement, but I think a 2
year old Linux box should fulfill that minimum system requirement.
10 years: Ok you perhaps a guru, but I'm still indoubt that you can
repair my system after an automatic update done by SuSE 8.2 in less the a
few days. Howevery I think I can't do it ... .
>
>> After you hard attck on my opinion you should tell me for what the
>> glibc 2.2.4 is needed in mozilla and firebird.
>
> My intent wasn't to attack you, just to say that you can't expect it to
> be supported on every old platform infinitely. You always have the
> option to compile it yourself. In fact, I have a script on my site that
> I use to compile firebird nightlies, that could be tweaked to build the
> suite:
> http://smartasfuck.com/mozilla/
>
> You'd have to tweak the .mozconfig . Typing about:buildconfig should
> show you the options that were used to build the mozilla you currently
> use.
>
ONCE AGAIN, I CAN fight with my Linux box and get Mozilla work, but I
have to win enough fights and I'm NOT INTRESSTED TO FIGHT FOR MOZILLA:
Because I think it is no too hard task for the Mozilla developers to
support 2 years old system, because every binary disitrbutor I know can
do it; examples: JDKs form SUN, IBM, and blockdown; eclipse IDE, opera
browser.
Too make a long story short: Dear Mozilla developer, please download a
old glibc from gnu.org compile it on your buildsystem and use it's
includes and libraries to build your Mozilla, Firebird, ... against that
library, I think that is done in a few hours one 1 system. And help many
owners of "old" Linux boxes. If this is impossible let me know why it is
impossible.
Kind regards
mle
mle
> mle wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
>>>software to support old systems? Should we ensure that it runs
>>>flawlessly on Windows 3.1?
>>
>>
>> You ensure that it works on Windows 95!! (8 Years!)
>
> Not really. Win95-specific bugs get little to no attention. Mozilla
> works in Win95 mostly because it works in Win98.
That is no problem because there a re no Windsows 95 bugs in Mozilla
which hurt me ...
>
>> I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
>> stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!!
>
> I have done many glibc updates and nothing caught on fire. A Staticly
> linked fileutils package comes in handy if things go south.
>
I know such success stories but my system is too important for me to try
such experiments, sorry.
>> After you hard attck on my opinion you should tell me for what the
>> glibc 2.2.4 is needed in mozilla and firebird.
>
> The build machines are running Red Hat 7.2, which has glibc-2.2.4, so
> the resulting binary depends on glibc-2.2.4. Having the relatively
> recent distro was necessary to get the build working properly with
> gcc32.
>
I think this porblme is solve able (fgrom another positing in this
thread):
Holger Baumhaus
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 04:36:02PM +0200, mle wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +0200, Ingo Frommholz wrote:
> >> > mle wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> >> >> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
> >> >>
> >> >> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
> >
> > The system requirements cleary state that glibc 2.2.4 is required.
> > Waiting for a new version to be compatible with an older library is
> > unproductive, to say the least.
> >
> > If 1.3.1 still works, then use that.
>
> That is what I do, but how to get updates? I will use konquereor in the
> future.
I'm willing to setup an infrastructure to compile mozilla for various
linux distributions and versions.
But I also have a question, should I use the out-of-the-box
installation (in your example a Suse 7.2 installation) or should I
also apply the vendor specific updates since the release (e.g.
security updates etc.) ?
And how far back would you start ? I think in the Suse example version
7.2 is as far as it goes, perhabs 7.1 would do it also, but I'm not
sure. For example, compiling a Mozilla 1.4 on an out-of-the-box
installation of Debian 2.2 is not possibile, you would have to update
some packages, which might break some others.
How about Redhat and all the other distributions, any suggestions ?
> > BTW, you don't need to build mozilla from source, if you update glibc.
> > There may be an updated package from SuSe, or you might have to build it
> > from scratch.
>
> I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
> stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!!
> But for "fun" I downloaded glibc 2.2.5 or 222.6 or so (gnu.org complied
> it) and started mozilla with ld manually. I hope that proves that I'm not
> too stupid.
> And SuSE don't offer an glibc update from 2.2.4 to 2.2.4 or better as far
> as I know (and I searched for it --really)
Yes, they do that for a good reason. It's not a good idea to mix
different glibc versions on one system. So they use a new glibc
version with a complete new distribution where all packages are
compiled against that glibc version.
HB
mle
My suggestion is:
(1) don't ask me, because I'm no Linux expert, but if you ask me anyhow
then:
(2) Take the newest Linux you like and make a very big directory with all
libraries you like to use during the Mozilla build. Then force your
compiler to use that libraries. Force means
(a) Modify the make files if everything else fails,
(b) start the compilation in an environment with defined variables,
LD_LIBRARY_PATH with pathes to the wanted libraries (gtk 1.2,
2.2.2,..), XFree, .....
(c) Ensure there is a fallback make process for people without that
directory
>> > BTW, you don't need to build mozilla from source, if you update
>> > glibc. There may be an updated package from SuSe, or you might have
>> > to build it from scratch.
>>
>> I did many updates on my linux System, but with google I found horrible
>> stories about the "sideeffects" of an glibc update!! But for "fun" I
>> downloaded glibc 2.2.5 or 222.6 or so (gnu.org complied it) and started
>> mozilla with ld manually. I hope that proves that I'm not too stupid.
>> And SuSE don't offer an glibc update from 2.2.4 to 2.2.4 or better as
>> far as I know (and I searched for it --really)
>
> Yes, they do that for a good reason. It's not a good idea to mix
> different glibc versions on one system. So they use a new glibc version
> with a complete new distribution where all packages are compiled against
> that glibc version.
>
> HB
You are completely right, and thats the reason why I don't update my
glibc
Kind regards
mle
Jerry Talkington
> mle <m...@neze.de> wrote in message news:<bk10ga$ck...@ripley.netscape.com>...
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:54:11 +0200, Jerry Talkington wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 04:36:02PM +0200, mle wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:21:02 +0200, Ingo Frommholz wrote:
> > >> > mle wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I'm waiting since version 1.3.1 for a mozilla version useable on my
> > >> >> "very old" (2 years) SuSE Linux 7.2 with a glibc 2.2.2:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.2, by Roland McGrath et al.
> > >
> > > The system requirements cleary state that glibc 2.2.4 is required.
> > > Waiting for a new version to be compatible with an older library is
> > > unproductive, to say the least.
> > >
> > > If 1.3.1 still works, then use that.
> >
> > That is what I do, but how to get updates? I will use konquereor in the
> > future.
>
> I'm willing to setup an infrastructure to compile mozilla for various
> linux distributions and versions.
>
> But I also have a question, should I use the out-of-the-box
> installation (in your example a Suse 7.2 installation) or should I
> also apply the vendor specific updates since the release (e.g.
> security updates etc.) ?
Vendor patches rarely break anything on the same version (e.g. applying
the redhat 7.2 patches won't break a 7.2 system,) so it's probably a
good idea to apply those.
> And how far back would you start ? I think in the Suse example version
> 7.2 is as far as it goes, perhabs 7.1 would do it also, but I'm not
> sure. For example, compiling a Mozilla 1.4 on an out-of-the-box
> installation of Debian 2.2 is not possibile, you would have to update
> some packages, which might break some others.
> How about Redhat and all the other distributions, any suggestions ?
Personally, I wouldn't bother going back more than 2 releases at most,
but do whatever floats your boat.
Andrew Schultz
> And how far back would you start ? I think in the Suse example version
> 7.2 is as far as it goes, perhabs 7.1 would do it also, but I'm not
> sure. For example, compiling a Mozilla 1.4 on an out-of-the-box
> installation of Debian 2.2 is not possibile, you would have to update
> some packages, which might break some others.
Compiling with egcs is probably hopeless. Beyond that, old packages shouldn't
cause problems (at least none that I know of).
Ingo Frommholz
mle wrote:
> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is (see
> my other psotings):
> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
I see your point, but if I read the ongoing thread, I get the impression the
"without any need" does not hold. If, for any reason, glibc 2.2.4 is needed,
it simply will not run with older distributions. Well, this glibc thing is
annoying, I hope one day there will be a version which is down compatible
enough to let programs run on older boxes as well.
Anyway, at mozilla.org they say that usually volunteers are the ones
providing pre-compiled versions (IIRC). So if you get it compiled an
running, share it. :-)
> And for the same reason I tell all my friends: "Don't use Linux; its a
> real pain", because they can't fight hard and a windows patch is allways
> very easy to install.
When I started to use Unix in the early ninetees at the university, the
philosophy was like this: if you need any software, system administrators
get it and compile it on some Unix servers. Users usually sit behind X11
terminals and don't care about such issues. I think parts of this philosophy
(which isn't a bad one) still persist in the Linux philosophy.
The problem is: this works at the university, and this works in a company,
but this doesn't work at home (at least not at present).
But: do the end-users really need the latest beta version of mozilla or any
other application? I think it's the task of Linux distributors like SuSE,
Red Hat, etc. to provide a system which is capable of running modern
applications. But this gets off-topic now. :-)
Regards,
Ingo
--
Ingo Frommholz PGP public keys on homepage
in...@frommholz.org http://www.frommholz.org/
"Windows [...] has no depth or soul. It's like the one-night-stand of
operating systems. You feel cheap after using it." (Stef Murky(!) in
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99jul/19990726.html)
Benjamin Smedberg
> Compiling with egcs is probably hopeless. Beyond that, old packages
> shouldn't cause problems (at least none that I know of).
Not so! One of the main mozilla tinderboxes was building with egcs (at
least until recently, I don't know about the tinderbox moves over the
last few days.).
--BDS
Andrew Schultz
Hmmm.. I think I was going on my memory of this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3E70B424.6050800%40netscape.com
But in retrospect, Mozilla/egcs was obviously not inherently busted because
there were egcs contributed builds for Mozilla 1.4
mle
> Hi,
>
> mle wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps I can compile Mozilla, but that is not my theme. My theme is
>> (see my other psotings):
>> Why does mozilla.org limit their audience wihtout any need?
>
> I see your point, but if I read the ongoing thread, I get the impression
> the "without any need" does not hold. If, for any reason, glibc 2.2.4 is
> needed, it simply will not run with older distributions.
Ok tell me a need and I will shut up, but I guess that the builders at
mozilla.org updated their build environment and let "./configure" choose
what every library is around on the build system; and that is no need ... .
> Well, this
> glibc thing is annoying, I hope one day there will be a version which is
> down compatible enough to let programs run on older boxes as well.
>
> Anyway, at mozilla.org they say that usually volunteers are the ones
> providing pre-compiled versions (IIRC). So if you get it compiled an
> running, share it. :-)
>
>
>> And for the same reason I tell all my friends: "Don't use Linux; its
>> a
>> real pain", because they can't fight hard and a windows patch is
>> allways very easy to install.
>
> When I started to use Unix in the early ninetees at the university, the
> philosophy was like this: if you need any software, system
> administrators get it and compile it on some Unix servers. Users usually
> sit behind X11 terminals and don't care about such issues. I think parts
> of this philosophy (which isn't a bad one) still persist in the Linux
> philosophy.
>
> The problem is: this works at the university, and this works in a
> company, but this doesn't work at home (at least not at present).
You say the same as I say, but with more friendly words. I can compile
and update libraries (not glibc), but the normal user can't.
>
> But: do the end-users really need the latest beta version of mozilla or
> any other application? I think it's the task of Linux distributors like
> SuSE, Red Hat, etc. to provide a system which is capable of running
> modern applications. But this gets off-topic now. :-)
off-topic -- really.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ingo
>
Regards
mle
Holger Baumhaus
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 07:11:12AM -0700, Holger Baumhaus wrote:
> > I'm willing to setup an infrastructure to compile mozilla for various
> > linux distributions and versions.
> >
> > But I also have a question, should I use the out-of-the-box
> > installation (in your example a Suse 7.2 installation) or should I
> > also apply the vendor specific updates since the release (e.g.
> > security updates etc.) ?
>
> Vendor patches rarely break anything on the same version (e.g. applying
> the redhat 7.2 patches won't break a 7.2 system,) so it's probably a
> good idea to apply those.
Ok.
> > And how far back would you start ? I think in the Suse example version
> > 7.2 is as far as it goes, perhabs 7.1 would do it also, but I'm not
> > sure. For example, compiling a Mozilla 1.4 on an out-of-the-box
> > installation of Debian 2.2 is not possibile, you would have to update
> > some packages, which might break some others.
> > How about Redhat and all the other distributions, any suggestions ?
>
> Personally, I wouldn't bother going back more than 2 releases at most,
> but do whatever floats your boat.
Just to keep you guys posted, I'm still waiting for my new harddrive
(since a build system like this will need a lot of space) and I'm also
busy learning for my upcoming college tests.
Hopefully everything will be in place around the last week of
September.
I think it only makes sense to compile releases of Mozilla, not alpha,
beta or rc-* versions.