experience building mozilla for woody
I got the source of Kitame's mozilla package and built it for woody.
It seems to be working OK. Thanks Kitame! It even seemed to remove
the standard woody package and retain my settings. I installed the
libnspr4 package first, then mozilla.
The thing is huge: I chewed up about 230Mg to build it.
There were a number of oddities I noticed, and I wonder if anyone
could comment on their seriousness and possible ways to fix them.
mozconfig has --disable-java. Is Java not working for this?
Does apt-get build-dep mozilla get the build dependencies for the
currently installed package, or the one that will be installed?
During the build I get the following errors:
checking for GDK_PIXBUF - version >= 0.8.0... no
*** The gdk-pixbuf-config script installed by GDK_PIXBUF could not be found
*** If GDK_PIXBUF was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in
*** your path, or set the GDK_PIXBUF_CONFIG environment variable to the
*** full path to gdk-pixbuf-config.
[cmsencode.c had many warnings about enumerations not included in switch.]
[debian/rules binary, as root, produced many errors like...]
cd debian && cat libnspr4.shlibs > shlibs.local
env LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/src/mozilla-0.9/debian/libnspr4/usr/lib:/usr/local/src/mozilla-0.9/debian/tmp/usr/lib/mozilla \
dh_shlibdeps -pmozilla -plibnspr4 #-pmozilla-mailnews -pmozilla-xmlterm #-pmozilla-editor
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: format of libxpcom.so not recognized
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: format of libplds4.so not recognized
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: format of libplc4.so not recognized
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: format of libnspr4.so not recognized
While that list is not complete, all files I checked where either in
the mozilla or the libnspr4 package. However, it looks as if the
search (LD_LIBRARY_PATH) is being set to look at teh new packages.
Also, the "format not recognized" messages sounds as if completely
different binary formats, not just, e.g., different symbol tables, are
at issue. Did the format change? Are these warnings a sign of a real
problem, or should things be OK?
Reply to: