Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] stable-rc firefox patch error

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] stable-rc firefox patch error
  • Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 22:49:16 -0700

Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>:
I had a working firefox 1.0.3 from the previous version of stable and
then decided to try to get 1.0.4 in stable-rc working.

My idea was that it would figure out what to do to upgrade. Everything
built according to plan, then an error happened after all the building
and installing was done:

patching file chrome/chrome.rdf
patching file chrome/overlayinfo/browser/content/overlays.rdf
patching file chrome/overlayinfo/communicator/content/overlays.rdf
patching file chrome/overlayinfo/inspector/content/overlays.rdf
patching file chrome/overlayinfo/messenger/content/overlays.rdf
patching file chrome/overlayinfo/navigator/content/overlays.rdf
The next patch would create the file components/xpti.dat,
which already exists! Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file components/xpti.dat.rej
The next patch would create the file components.ini,
which already exists! Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file components.ini.rej
The next patch would create the file defaults.ini,
which already exists! Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file defaults.ini.rej
patching file extensions/{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}/install.rdf
patching file extensions/Extensions.rdf
patching file extensions/installed-extensions-processed.txt

The only thing I had done to firefox was to install the googlerank
plugin as a non-root user. In any case, the build failed at this point.
I don't think we can expect users to know they need to rm -rf something,
however I could put this in the next release notes, or we could have an
upgrade process that works perfectly. Should we do the latter? And if
we do the former, what do I need to do to get it to build, just rm -rf
/usr/lib/firefox and try again? I'm not sure exactly what's going on
under the hood of the nspr and nss spells at this point or even if it's
near completeness. Any input is appreciated.

This problem has cropped up now and then ever since the init patch idea
was first put in, so it has nothing to do with the nss/nspr code being
split out. I'd prefer that someone with the time and energy to figure
out why firefox alone (mozilla and thunderbird work fine, along with
packages built off of them) has problems like this.

-sandalle

--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @
WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page