Re: [SLE] Firefox 1.0.8
Looking at some RPM repositories, I don't see any 1.5.0.2 RPM files for SUSE/SuSE out there yet.
Maybe you could make one? :) Why would you want an RPM when all you need to do is to go to the Mozilla site - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/ - and download the *.tar.gz file of the latest FF (or TB) file (I use the nightlies), untar it and install it?
Comfort. Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux work and the relationship (or lack thereof) I have a fear of installing something from TAR, not knowing if it will/will not run with my other apps. I am much more secure knowing I'll install an RPM and it will work the way it should and that there won't be issues down the road, for which I"m completely unprepared to handle. I'm sure others feel the same way. For a smallish app like - say - AirCrack or NMap - which don't need KDE/Gnome integration - there isn't an issue. This fear, I think, only comes with more "involved" apps like Firefox or OpenOffice. -- k
On Mon April 17 2006 2:22 pm, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux work and the relationship (or lack thereof) I have a fear of installing something from TAR, not knowing if it will/will not run with my other apps. I am much more secure knowing I'll install an RPM and it will work the way it should and that there won't be issues down the road, for which I"m completely unprepared to handle. I'm sure others feel the same way.
what happens ( at least it happened to me with Firefox) is that I installed it from the tar as me ( a user) and I installed the RPM as root. Now, depending on what button I click, or what menu I use I get either 1.5.0.1 or 1.5.0.2 gets confusing!! Last time I tried removing all & starting from scratch I had so many crap files left floating around, that I got errors when I tried to restart FireFox. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
On Monday 17 April 2006 2:22 pm, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux work and the relationship (or lack thereof) I have a fear of installing something from TAR, not knowing if it will/will not run with my other apps. I am much more secure knowing I'll install an RPM and it will work the way it should and that there won't be issues down the road, for which I"m completely unprepared to handle. I'm sure others feel the same way.
For a smallish app like - say - AirCrack or NMap - which don't need KDE/Gnome integration - there isn't an issue. This fear, I think, only comes with more "involved" apps like Firefox or OpenOffice. In the general case, the advantage of RPMs are that they maintain a database.
Most tarballs use the configure/make/make install sequence. The configure
essentially checks the dependencies. The disadvantage is that a database is
not maintained. You could easily install a number of different versions of
the same product. But, when you are installing an application as a tarball,
it should not cause trouble with much else. The advantage with tarballs are
that you custom build them for your environment.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Mon April 17 2006 2:36 pm, Jerry Feldman wrote:
In the general case, the advantage of RPMs are that they maintain a database.
true!
Most tarballs use the configure/make/make install sequence. The configure essentially checks the dependencies. The disadvantage is that a database is not maintained. You could easily install a number of different versions of the same product. But, when you are installing an application as a tarball, it should not cause trouble with much else. The advantage with tarballs are that you custom build them for your environment.
you can ( and I do now) use checkinstall so the process is(usually): ./configure make checkinstall cd to that directory run the command checkinstall told me, usually rpm -i... -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800 X-Request-PGP: http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-pcartwright/key.asc
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 04:44, kai wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 12:42 pm, Paul Cartwright wrote:
you can ( and I do now) use checkinstall
I have yet to successfully create a checkinstalled rpm. I always seem to get an error.
Dunno - maybe it is just me.
-- k
I have also had problems with checkinstall but have found a way of solving the two problems i seem to get .. they are .. it will complain cant find file ------------ so i use "touch filename" that seems to fix it may not be the correct way but it works for me .. and on other occaisions i have to run "make " "make install" as normal then run checkinstall to build the rpm then "make uninstall" (if there is one not always supplied) then the normal rpm -i path/to/file/filename HTH in some small way Pete . -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM
On Mon April 17 2006 11:44 pm, kai wrote:
I have yet to successfully create a checkinstalled rpm. I always seem to get an error.
Dunno - maybe it is just me.
I remember someone saying that after you do the make, if you do a make install, then try checkinstall. It can't hurt, it would only install on top of the other, but then RPM database would know.. -- Paul Cartwright Registered Linux user # 367800
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Mon April 17 2006 11:44 pm, kai wrote:
I have yet to successfully create a checkinstalled rpm. I always seem to get an error.
Dunno - maybe it is just me.
I remember someone saying that after you do the make, if you do a make install, then try checkinstall. It can't hurt, it would only install on top of the other, but then RPM database would know.. This may apply to tarballs generally but as far as the one I am talking about - which is the Firefox (or Thunderbird) one - this does NOT apply.
If you download from the Mozilla.org URL I gave previously the tar.gz which has "installer" in its name all you do is to put it into a directory within your /home/<yourname> (I call mine Temp0), start mc (Midnight Commander), highlight the file and press F2 key where you will select 'z' as the option; this will untar the file into its own directory under Temp0; you then enter that directory and double-click on the 'install' file - and FF (or TB) will be magically installed. After installation all you need to do is to setup the symlink for the java plugin. Cheers. -- I was very heavily into pornography. Then my pornograph broke.
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 07:22, Basil Chupin wrote:
Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Mon April 17 2006 11:44 pm, kai wrote:
I have yet to successfully create a checkinstalled rpm. I always seem to get an error.
Dunno - maybe it is just me.
I remember someone saying that after you do the make, if you do a make install, then try checkinstall. It can't hurt, it would only install on top of the other, but then RPM database would know..
This may apply to tarballs generally but as far as the one I am talking about - which is the Firefox (or Thunderbird) one - this does NOT apply.
If you download from the Mozilla.org URL I gave previously the tar.gz which has "installer" in its name all you do is to put it into a directory within your /home/<yourname> (I call mine Temp0), start mc (Midnight Commander), highlight the file and press F2 key where you will select 'z' as the option; this will untar the file into its own directory under Temp0; you then enter that directory and double-click on the 'install' file - and FF (or TB) Ouch long winded or what i thought mc was supposed to be quick ..Duhh
"tar zxfv " "cd into dir" "./mozilla-installer" job done . Pete . -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM
On Monday 17 April 2006 14:22, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux
Being a newbie, one of the first things to learn is that it is NOT GNU/Linux, it is just Linux. (Much as the GNU people would like you to think that way)
On Monday 17 April 2006 2:40 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 14:22, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux
Being a newbie, one of the first things to learn is that it is NOT GNU/Linux, it is just Linux.
(Much as the GNU people would like you to think that way) When you run a user group in Boston, you run the risk of RMS himself attending the meeting and causing quite a bit of chaos. The GNU folks put some pressure on us at one time (probably 1994 time frame) to change the name of our group.
The bottom line is that what is known as Linux really comes from a number of
sources, Linux is the kernel still controlled by Linus, many utilities from
Stallman's Free Software Foundation, some from the University of
California, etc.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Monday 17 April 2006 15:05, Jerry Feldman wrote:
When you run a user group in Boston, you run the risk of RMS himself attending the meeting and causing quite a bit of chaos. The GNU folks put some pressure on us at one time (probably 1994 time frame) to change the name of our group.
The bottom line is that what is known as Linux really comes from a number of sources, Linux is the kernel still controlled by Linus, many utilities from Stallman's Free Software Foundation, some from the University of California, etc.
Sure.... and don't forget the important contributions of SCO.......
Sure.... and don't forget the important contributions of SCO...... Classic SCO - Xenix a highly corrupt version of Unix first engineered by Microsoft. - SCO Unix - a bit less corrupted than Xenix, but... SCO Group - They have contributed a tremendous amount to our industry. Led by the standup comic Darl McBride, they have prompted many vendors to
On Monday 17 April 2006 3:20 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote:
provide indemnities. Nearly a day goes by when I read GROKLAW and SCO's
antics. More recently, Novell forced them into arbitration as required
under the UnitedLinux banner. When SCO wins their suit against IBM forcing
IBM not to use Unix or Linux, they plan to sue Microsoft because somewhere
along the way SCO inherited the rights to the C language. In any case,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP should receive quite an income from SCO.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Monday 17 April 2006 20:40, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 14:22, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux
Being a newbie, one of the first things to learn is that it is NOT GNU/Linux, it is just Linux.
(Much as the GNU people would like you to think that way)
This is interesting. I learned it the other way around: I tought it was Linux, but Linux is only the kernel, and GNU provides basic applications built around it. According at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), we both are right. Cheers, Leen
On Monday 17 April 2006 19:49, Leendert Meyer wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 20:40, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 14:22, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux
Being a newbie, one of the first things to learn is that it is NOT GNU/Linux, it is just Linux.
(Much as the GNU people would like you to think that way)
This is interesting. I learned it the other way around: I tought it was Linux, but Linux is only the kernel, and GNU provides basic applications built around it.
According at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), we both are right.
GNU supplied the compiler and some other utilities. I read it best at a place where someone suggested we call it KDE/Linux or Apache/Linux. It just doesn't make sense to call it GNU/Linux. (Yes there are GNU supplied pieces.....)
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 02:16, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 19:49, Leendert Meyer wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 20:40, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Monday 17 April 2006 14:22, Kai Ponte wrote:
Being a newbie and not knowing about the innards of how GNU/Linux
Being a newbie, one of the first things to learn is that it is NOT GNU/Linux, it is just Linux.
(Much as the GNU people would like you to think that way)
This is interesting. I learned it the other way around: I tought it was Linux, but Linux is only the kernel, and GNU provides basic applications built around it.
According at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux), we both are right.
GNU supplied the compiler and some other utilities.
I read it best at a place where someone suggested we call it KDE/Linux or Apache/Linux.
It just doesn't make sense to call it GNU/Linux. (Yes there are GNU supplied pieces.....)
Yes, right after I posted my email I read another article on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy IMHO naming the OS after the kernel does not sound quite right. But this name is widely used, and I'm happy to use it too: it's short and powerful. 'Nuf said. ;) (we're getting a bit OT too) Cheers, Leen
participants (8)
-
Basil Chupin -
Bruce Marshall -
Jerry Feldman -
kai -
Kai Ponte
-
Leendert Meyer -
Paul Cartwright -
Peter Nikolic