Re: firefox-37, where to put
On Thursday 02 April 2015 13:16:15 Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:06:05 -0400
>
> Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> wrote:
> > This is nucking futs:
>
> No, that shows that Mozilla Foundation cares about people. Would you
> prefer Google's approach - latest Chrome requires kernel 3.19?
>
> > gene@coyote:~/bin/firefox-37/firefox$ file firefox
> > firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
> > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18,
> > BuildID[sha1]=0xd9c52e07232a78690be6d991546a12bb3668601d, stripped
> >
> > For GNU Linux-2.6.18? And I'm running 3.2.0-4amd64?
>
> That's minimal kernel version that guaranteed to work. And by running
> Debian-provided kernel you're saving yourself a whole lot of trouble
> :)
>
> > Itself what, 2 years
> > old? What the hell are the chances for that being compatible when
> > its well north of 6 years old? My CNC machinery is running
> > Ubuntu-10.04-4 LTS with kernel 2.6.32-122-rtai, 5 years old this
> > month.
>
> Good ones. Firefox does not depend on kernel internals, and the motto
> of Linux kernel project is 'you do not break userspace'. It's recorded
> that people were able to run a 'rogue' executable compiled circa `92
> on modern Linux kernels.
>
> It's the userspace (i.e. libraries) you should worry about, not
> kernel.
>
> So, don't look at 'file' output that much, run 'ldd'.
>
> Reco
"ldd" says its not an executable, but then says ldd itself is not,
while "file" says its (ldd) a Bourne Again SHell script.
Am I compromized?
Thanks Reco.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: