lack of executable in /usr/bin
Robert Holtzman
firefox/firefox command. No issues with the browser but the only way it
can be opened is with the same firefox/firefox command. "Which firefox"
shows no executable. Searching /usr/bin confirms this. It's not a deal
breaker but an annoyance. Can someone tell me what's going on?
--
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
Christian Riechers
> Running Debian Squeeze. Downloaded FF5 and installed using the
> firefox/firefox command. No issues with the browser but the only way it
> can be opened is with the same firefox/firefox command. "Which firefox"
> shows no executable. Searching /usr/bin confirms this. It's not a deal
> breaker but an annoyance. Can someone tell me what's going on?
>
Create a symbolic link firefox in /usr/bin pointing to the installed
firefox binary.
--
Christian
Robert Holtzman
I'm aware of a couple of work arounds for this including creating an
alias. What I'm really after is information as to whether the lack of a
/usr/bin executable is intentional on the part of the devs, and if so,
why. If there are no answers forthcoming on this list I'll try posting to
the dev list.
Since the firefox/firefox file is an executable I'm contemplating moving
it into /usr/bin as soon as I get some time to experiment.
goodwin
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:32:46PM +0200, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 09:55 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>> Running Debian Squeeze. Downloaded FF5 and installed using the
>>> firefox/firefox command.
this is not the way you installed it - debian firefox doesn't have an
installer.
>>> No issues with the browser but the only way it
>>> can be opened is with the same firefox/firefox command. "Which firefox"
>>> shows no executable.
??
so how does firefox work??
>>> Searching /usr/bin confirms this. It's not a deal
>>> breaker but an annoyance. Can someone tell me what's going on?
>>>
looks like debian puts it in /usr/lib sometimes - dunno why, I use ubuntu.
>>
>> Create a symbolic link firefox in /usr/bin pointing to the installed
>> firefox binary.
>
> I'm aware of a couple of work arounds for this including creating an
> alias. What I'm really after is information as to whether the lack of a
> /usr/bin executable is intentional on the part of the devs, and if so,
> why. If there are no answers forthcoming on this list I'll try posting to
> the dev list.
this isn't a dev issue - its a debian issue, due to branding. you
should have iceweasel hanging around somewhere probably, which is
firefox's name in debian.
Robert Holtzman
> On 07/25/2011 06:08 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:32:46PM +0200, Christian Riechers wrote:
> >>On 07/25/2011 09:55 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> >>>Running Debian Squeeze. Downloaded FF5 and installed using the
> >>>firefox/firefox command.
>
> this is not the way you installed it
Sure of that, are you?
> - debian firefox doesn't have an installer.
I never said it was Debian Firefox. It's FF 5.0 downloaded from the
Mozilla site.
>
>
> >>>No issues with the browser but the only way it
> >>>can be opened is with the same firefox/firefox command. "Which firefox"
> >>>shows no executable.
>
> ??
> so how does firefox work??
No issues so far.
........snip........
> this isn't a dev issue - its a debian issue, due to branding. you
> should have iceweasel hanging around somewhere probably, which is
> firefox's name in debian.
Not a Debian issue because it's not a Debian rebrand. It's hot off the
Mozilla site. That makes it a Firefox issue.
goodwin
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:53:24PM -0700, goodwin wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 06:08 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:32:46PM +0200, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>> On 07/25/2011 09:55 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>>>> Running Debian Squeeze. Downloaded FF5 and installed using the
>>>>> firefox/firefox command.
>>
>> this is not the way you installed it
>
> Sure of that, are you?
yes
>
>> - debian firefox doesn't have an installer.
>
> I never said it was Debian Firefox. It's FF 5.0 downloaded from the
> Mozilla site.
>>
which was a tarbz file. if you ran the firefox within that file, , then
it ran a script called firefox which does not install firefox..
where you extracted the tar to only you know.
>>
>>>>> No issues with the browser but the only way it
>>>>> can be opened is with the same firefox/firefox command. "Which firefox"
>>>>> shows no executable.
>>
>> ??
>> so how does firefox work??
>
> No issues so far.
you didn't answer the question - with no executable, how does it work?
its got to be somewhere...
>
> ........snip........
>
>> this isn't a dev issue - its a debian issue, due to branding. you
>> should have iceweasel hanging around somewhere probably, which is
>> firefox's name in debian.
>
> Not a Debian issue because it's not a Debian rebrand. It's hot off the
> Mozilla site. That makes it a Firefox issue.
no, it doesn't - what did you do with the tar.bz file?
>
goodwin
> On 07/26/2011 04:57 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:53:24PM -0700, goodwin wrote:
>>> On 07/25/2011 06:08 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:32:46PM +0200, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>>> On 07/25/2011 09:55 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>>>>> Running Debian Squeeze. Downloaded FF5 and installed using the
>>>>>> firefox/firefox command.
>>>
>>> this is not the way you installed it
>>
>> Sure of that, are you?
>
> yes
>
>>
>>> - debian firefox doesn't have an installer.
>>
>> I never said it was Debian Firefox. It's FF 5.0 downloaded from the
>> Mozilla site.
>>>
>
> which was a tarbz file. if you ran the firefox within that file, , then
> it ran a script called firefox which does not install firefox..
> where you extracted the tar to only you know.
>
part of said said script:
This script is meant to run the application binary from mozilla/dist/bin.
##
## The script will setup all the environment voodoo needed to make
## the application binary to work.
##
#uncomment for debugging
#set -x
moz_libdir=/usr/local/lib/firefox-5.0
Christian Riechers
FF for Linux comes as a tar archive, which contains all files needed to
run it, including the binary. The archive isn't an installer.
I suppose you did extract the archive in your home directory, which
creates a firefox directory, with the firefox script and all other files
inside. Hence you can run it with the 'firefox/firefox'command.
Extracting an archive isn't exactly the same as 'installing' an
application, like you may know from Windows.
It is the responsibility of the user to create a symbolic link to the
script inside a directory included in your search path, e.g. /usr/bin.
Alternatively you can also include ~/firefox in your $PATH variable.
Personally I'd not extract FF in my home directory, I usually put it
under /opt. But there is no standard for that.
If that all sounds to complicated, use the package manager for your
distribution, which will take care for everything.
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Installing%20Firefox%20on%20Linux
--
Christian
goodwin
> holtzm@localhost:~$ ls/usr/local/lib/
> python2.6
>
> Curious, no?
Can't say since I'm not that good at reading the script - it gives me a
headache.
my bin is in
/usr/lib/firefox-5.0/firefox-bin
that location figures - it isn't part of distro install so it goes to
/usr/lib IIUC.
note firefox (-)bin not (.)bin
that threw me - never noticed.
F/U set to moz gen - we're getting a tad OT here.
Robert Holtzman
To quote the Moz site from the same link you provided (the same one I
used when I installed FF):
The following instructions will install Firefox into your home
^^^^^^^
directory, and only the current user will be able to run it.
Note: The installation file provided by Mozilla in .tar.bz2 format does
not contain sources but pre-compiled binary files, therefore you can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
simply unpack and run them. There is no need to compile the program from
source if all the system requirements are met.
> like you may know from Windows.
I know damned little from Windows as I've been running various flavors
of Linux for some 10 yrs.
> It is the responsibility of the user to create a symbolic link to the
> script inside a directory included in your search path, e.g. /usr/bin.
> Alternatively you can also include ~/firefox in your $PATH variable.
> Personally I'd not extract FF in my home directory, I usually put it
> under /opt. But there is no standard for that.
I'm well aware of the work around you mention. The one I never thought
of was including ~/firefox in the $PATH.
If you read my original post you will note that I was only asking why the
installation script didn't put an executable in /usr/bin.
> If that all sounds to complicated, use the package manager for your
> distribution, which will take care for everything.
> http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Installing%20Firefox%20on%20Linux
Obviously. Only problem is that there is no such animal. Debian, in it's
zeal to eschew any encumbered software, only offers iceweasel, a
rebranded FF. It was giving me problems, which was the reason I
downloaded FF in the first place. I much prefer using the repos as it
makes updates simpler.
>
> --
> Christian
> _______________________________________________
> support-firefox mailing list
> support...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox
> To unsubscribe, send an email to support-fir...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe
Christian Riechers
I don't want to be picky about the definition of what 'install' means.
All you do is extracting an archive. If you want to call this to
'install' the application, that's fine. As you noted, this kind of
'install' puts the application into your home directory, and *not*
anywhere else.
>
>
>> like you may know from Windows.
>
> I know damned little from Windows as I've been running various flavors
> of Linux for some 10 yrs.
Then you should have learned by now that using Linux means you almost
always have a choice.
>> It is the responsibility of the user to create a symbolic link to the
>> script inside a directory included in your search path, e.g. /usr/bin.
>> Alternatively you can also include ~/firefox in your $PATH variable.
>> Personally I'd not extract FF in my home directory, I usually put it
>> under /opt. But there is no standard for that.
>
> I'm well aware of the work around you mention. The one I never thought
> of was including ~/firefox in the $PATH.
>
> If you read my original post you will note that I was only asking why the
> installation script didn't put an executable in /usr/bin.
Why in /usr/bin? What makes you think this is the one and only correct
location? Someone else might want it in /usr/local/bin. The next one in
~/bin. And there are even more potential locations. There simply is no
standard for this. So it makes pretty much sense to me that a user
creates the symlink to the firefox script where one thinks it should be.
>> If that all sounds to complicated, use the package manager for your
>> distribution, which will take care for everything.
>> http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Installing%20Firefox%20on%20Linux
>
> Obviously. Only problem is that there is no such animal. Debian, in it's
> zeal to eschew any encumbered software, only offers iceweasel, a
> rebranded FF. It was giving me problems, which was the reason I
> downloaded FF in the first place. I much prefer using the repos as it
> makes updates simpler.
I do prefer downloading the archive from the Mozilla site, and do the
updates myself.
--
Christian
Robert Holtzman
> On 07/28/2011 10:25 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:47:33PM +0200, Christian Riechers wrote:
> >> On 07/26/2011 03:08 AM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> I don't want to be picky about the definition of what 'install' means.
> All you do is extracting an archive. If you want to call this to
> 'install' the application, that's fine. As you noted, this kind of
> 'install' puts the application into your home directory, and *not*
> anywhere else.
I've never been fond of semantic arguments either.
> >
> >> like you may know from Windows.
> >
> > I know damned little from Windows as I've been running various flavors
> > of Linux for some 10 yrs.
>
> Then you should have learned by now that using Linux means you almost
> always have a choice.
I learned that even before I tried Linux. It's one of the things that
drew me.
> >
> > If you read my original post you will note that I was only asking why the
> > installation script didn't put an executable in /usr/bin.
>
> Why in /usr/bin? What makes you think this is the one and only correct
> location? Someone else might want it in /usr/local/bin. The next one in
> ~/bin. And there are even more potential locations. There simply is no
> standard for this. So it makes pretty much sense to me that a user
> creates the symlink to the firefox script where one thinks it should be.
/usr/bin is where I'm used to having executables. It's also where almost
every repo installation puts them. Where others choose to put them is up
to them and is fine with me.