Re: Help configuring old mozilla compile
Phoenix
it's light, it's fast, it's *just* a browser, its moz/gecko based.
only at 0.4 but even here in windows land it's what we've waited these long
years for
t 08:08 PM 12/3/02 +0000, Pigeon wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:59:11AM -0500, Travis Crump wrote:
>> Oki DZ wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:24:11AM +0000, Pigeon wrote:
>> >
>> >>But I've got this infuriating circular problem. It wants to link with
>> >>the libraries libjs.a and libjsj.a. What source package are these
provided
>> >>by? Mozilla. Can I figure out how to get it to build them before it
>> >>wants to link with them? No. The docs that came with the package? It's
>> >>more or less a case of 'what docs?'
>> >
>> > Looks like a lot of questions to me...
>> > What about setting your sources.list into unstable, and then apt-getting
>> > the mozilla-snapshot? I've been using it for a while; I don't think that
>> > I have encountered the problems you had.
>> >
>> > Oki
>>
>> I am guessing, but since libjs.a and libjsj.a aren't in the current
>> compiled mozilla tree[there is libjsj.so, but nothing ~close~ to
>> libjs.a], I think he is trying to compile the slink version of mozilla,
>> a snapshot from 10/1998. This is pretty much guaranteed to be a piece
>> of crap no matter how you compile it.
>
>Read the first line of my original post... :-)
>
>I thought all versions of netscape/mozilla were crap, just some were
>more crap than others?
>
>I'm used to using Netscape 4.06 in Windoze. I find it OK, apart from
>occasionally wanting 400 meg of memory for no apparent reason, and the
>continual javascript errors - which probably mean some really annoying
>piece of crap on the website has just failed, so I don't mind that.
>The slink mozilla, which is schizy and calls itself Netscape Lite
>5.0a1, looks and feels pretty much the same, apart from lacking some
>of the flashy extra bits which I never use anyway. So I'm happy with
>it, apart from infuriating stuff like the URL bar not working and the
>error messages which occur while everything is working.
>
>Looking at the woody version, the complexity of the source is vastly
>greater but the documentation is if anything worse. And it seems I
>still need extra stuff to compile it, and what's the point of the
>latest version? I like to stick with the earliest version that
>provides all the features I want, cos it's generally smaller and
>faster, and there isn't a shed-load of extra crap getting in the way.
>
>(I once tried Netscape 6 in Windoze on a 90Mz Pentium. Forget it.
>S...o... s....l.....o.......w........ I can't drink that much tea.)
>
>The slink mozilla deb includes libjs.a but not libjsj.a. There isn't
>(correct me if I'm wrong) a website with a package search page for the
>slink archives, but looking for clues by searching woody from the
>website, I find that libjsj.a is provided by libmozillasomething-dev
>(forget the exact name), the source code of which is the whole mozilla
>source package. And indeed the slink mozilla compilation is trying to
>build a libjsj.a, a half-assed debug version that is not complete
>enough to allow me to use it as a fudge.
>
>I know this is an old package, but there must be someone out there who
>remembers compiling it when it was a new package?
>
>Pigeon
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: