On Monday 19 January 2009 18:59:36 Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2009-01-19, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-01-18, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> All the packages built against mozilla-firefox won't > >>>>>> compile, if after installing firefox 3.0 you get some > >>>>>> blockers, please add 'xulrunner' to your USE-flags. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does anybody have idea what the above sentence is trying to say? > >>>>> > >>>>> It's saying that if you use firefox -3*, then you should > >>>>> remove "firefox" from your USE and add "xulrunner" instead. > >>>>> This way, nothing in the tree will try to pull in firefox-2* > >>>>> (which obviously conflicts with firefox-3*). > >>>> > >>>> Wow. I'm not doubting that what you say is true, but how > >>>> anybody was supposed to get that from the emerge message is > >>>> beyond me. > >>>> > >>>>> There have been 4 earlier threads on this very topic in the > >>>>> last fortnight. For more details, please check the recent > >>>>> archives (rehashing the same thing over and over is getting > >>>>> really tedious) > >>>> > >>>> Sort of makes you wonder if the message is a bit too cryptic, > >>>> eh? > >>> > >>> If I read that message out loud, it sounds suspiciously like a > >>> babelfish translation from Japanese to English. Whatever it > >>> is, the author of the message is certainly not a native > >>> English speaker. > >>> > >>> But the intent is easy to see if you already know how it > >>> works. > >> > >> Yes, once somebody has told you the answer, it's possible to > >> make some sense of the message. But, I stand by my assertion > >> that give just the message very many people are going to figure > >> out that it means you need to replace the "firefox" use flag > >> with the "xulrunner" use flag so that apps will build against > >> firefox-3 instead of trying to build against firefox-2. > > > > Someone should file a bug to have the message changed to something > > clearer. > > I'd be happy to do that. Is the following correct? > > The UI and rendering libraries that were part of the > mozilla-firefox 2.x package have been split from the mozilla > firefox-3.x package and are now in the xulrunner package. In > order for ebuilds to use xulrunner instead of mozilla-firefox > 2.x, the "firefox" USE flag must be replaced by the > "xulrunner" USE flag. Failure to replace the "firefox" USE > flag with the "xulrunner" USE flag will result in portage > requiring mozilla-firefox 2.x which is incompatible with > mozilla-firefox 3.x -- this will block some packages from > building.
replace "will result in portage requiring mozilla-firefox 2.x" with "will result in portage attempting to merge mozilla-firefox-2.x" It's not portage that requires firefox, but some other ebuilds. Other than that, the language makes sense and is technically accurate - not too much detail, but enough info to tell the user what to do. You got the intent right - the user does not really have a choice about what to USE if they want ff-3 -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
