Comments on: XULRunner 1.9 / Firefox 3.0b3

By: Administrator

Administrator — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:08:48 +0000

Ahh, that was an issue in one of the earlier builds. Please get the latest one. It has libjemalloc.so built in.

By: Vadym

Vadym — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:49:51 +0000

Hi Wolfgang,

this is what happens when I try to install the firefox package manually on openSUSE 10.3 for x86-64:
stal-dev-lx1:/var/lib/smart/packages # rpm -q firefox
package firefox is not installed
stal-dev-lx1:/var/lib/smart/packages # rpm -ivh firefox-2.9.94-2.1.i586.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libjemalloc.so is needed by firefox-2.9.94-2.1.i586

libjemalloc.so is provided by the xulrunner package, and that one depends on the mozilla-nss package.

By: Administrator

Administrator — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:12:50 +0000

Vadym, I don’t see why it should depend on NSPR, NSS and xulrunner. Please send me a PM or open a bug in bugzilla.novell.com and I’ll get it.

By: Vadym

Vadym — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:53:39 +0000

Strange, the “standalone” firefox-2.9.94-2.1.i586.rpm package for openSUSE 10.3 won’t install on openSUSE 10.3 for x86_64 unless both mozilla-nss-3.12.0-12.1.i586.rpm and mozilla-xulrunner190-1.8.99.4-2.1.i586.rpm are installed. Which is a blocker as these conflict with the standard 32-bit baselibs packages. And even if I manually extract the right files from the firefox rpm, then firefox does not start because the firefox binary still depends on libs from /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/. So there is a dependency on xulrunner … Manually extracting xulrunner files into the right place does not solve the problem because
firefox.sh does not add /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/ to LD_LIBRARY_PATH …

By: Administrator

Administrator — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:40:16 +0000

Pete, the “more” recent firefox is a real 3.0b3 which is provided for people using for example mixed arch installations. It doesn’t have requirements to NSPR, NSS and XULRunner because it’s a complete package. The other MozillaFirefox package is actually almost a 3.0b4 but needs NSPR, NSS and mozilla-xulrunner190 in the right architectures installed. Unfortunately the buildservice is not yet ready to provide baselibs (-32bit) packages and so I decided to create the “firefox” alternative for now.

By: Rubal

Rubal — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:53:33 +0000

hi , i just read abt this new firefox. how can i insatll it using zypper command

coz i m new to linux and when i try to install rpms ,, it gives lots of missing dependencies

By: Pete Herworth

Pete Herworth — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:48:41 +0000

There are 2 packages in the beta - Mozilla Firefox 2.9.93-32 and a more recent firefox 2.9.93-10.
A bit confusing and the more recent is a bigger download.
Is there a reason for this? Have I got it wrong?

By: Aslash

Aslash — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:55:07 +0000

thank tou so much… worked perfectly!
now i’ve got my shiny new beta3 installed

By: Administrator

Administrator — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:20:37 +0000

Aslash, there was a bug in the package recently which caused the removal to fail. You can remove the packages with “rpm -e –noscripts PACKAGE”. You probably want to remove all of them and install the latest one afterwards.

By: Aslash

Aslash — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:37:22 +0000

Sorry for posting here, i’m a little newbie at this things and don’t know where fits better…
i was trying firefox 3 beta3 from your mozilla:beta repository, and after upgrading from one version to another (2.9.93-2 to 2.9.93-3 or 2.9.93-10) the uninstallation of old packeges fails and in yast seems that i have now 4 firefox installed simultaneously…
i’m using 10.3 on a 32bit system, i will give you any other information needed. thanks!