Andrew Benton wrote: > You shouldn't go filing bugs if it's the BLFS build process that's > broken. I haven't had this problem for more than a year, but then I > don't build Firefox the BLFS way, I do it the Mozilla way > http://www.mozilla.org/build/configure-build.html
Depends on wether or not the BLFS build procees is broken, judging from below it still looks like it's a moz bug. It seems the install target is not doing something that it should be doing. Unless of course if it's depreciated and not supposed to be used. In that case I'm sure moz-dev would appreciate a patch to remove it so as not to get false bug reports. But somebody needs to do some testing to figure out what is different. An identical install vs packaged build should do the trick. I'll dig into it a little later this week, but if you or Archaic (or anybody else that used the packaged build) still happen to have your build tree laying around this will be easy enough to test if you'd like to assist. I understand if not, 10 SBU is a good chunk of time to waste if it already works for you. :-) > . $topsrcdir/browser/config/mozconfig > mk_add_options [EMAIL PROTECTED]@/firefox > ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2 > ac_add_options --enable-xft > ac_add_options --disable-freetype2 > ac_add_options --with-java-bin-path=/usr/local/jre1.5.0/bin > ac_add_options --with-pthreads > ac_add_options --with-system-jpeg=/usr > ac_add_options --with-system-zlib=/usr > ac_add_options --with-system-png=/usr > ac_add_options --enable-optimize > ac_add_options --disable-tests > ac_add_options --enable-svg -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
