Re: [Cooker] Mozilla + Enigmail fail

Important note for Fred: Although enigmail 0.65.1 was built for 1.1b, it DOESN'T and WON'T run with RC1. Someone more capable than I must do some work to upgrade and release a new version of enigmail after 1.1 goes final. Gilles Mocellin wrote: > Enigmail can't initialize when composing a mail

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla + arts + Flash => hang

On Saturday 17 August 2002 09:20 am, Frederic Crozat wrote: > And BTW, all these problems are caused by flash plugin.. Feel free to > complain against MacroMedia... Yes, the Linux flash plugin is outdated and sucks. I would suggest purchasing Crossover Plugin from codeweavers.com and installing

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla + arts + Flash => hang

On Saturday 17 August 2002 17:20, Frederic Crozat wrote: [...] > > No, because Mozilla menu entry in our package calls soundwrapper which will > call artsdsp when arts is running.. > > And BTW, all these problems are caused by flash plugin.. Feel free to > complain against MacroMedia... Thanks!

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla + arts + Flash => hang

Le Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:57:42 +0300, Eyal Ben-David a écrit : > Hello, > > First, I use KDE 3.1 beta from CVS (compiled with gcc 3.2), so maybe my > problem dows not exist with Cooker KDE packages. > > When I run mozilla in KDE and the contents of the page contains some Flash > "applets", Mozil

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla right-click on link

On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 05:01:22 +0200, Lonnie Borntreger wrote: > Is there a reason why "Open in New Window" and "Open in New Tab" > switched places on the menu that appears when right-clicking a link in > Mozilla 1.1?? Ask mozilla developers.. -- Frederic Crozat MandrakeSoft

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Spell Checker Dependency Omission Error

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Buchan Milne wrote: > Apparently lang and location get picked up if they are for example > en-GB.dic instead of en_GB.dic. If they didn't do this, we could just > link /usr/lib/mozilla/components/myspell to /usr/lib/myspell (although > that might still be the best option). P

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Spell Checker Dependency Omission Error

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Latest Cooker Mozilla Spellchecker (-9) can be installed with no other | dependency requirements. However, it relies on the Myspell dictionaries | for spellchecking. In the latest cooker, I installed the spellchecker | RPM b

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla link within email issue

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When an email is open in Mozilla, and there is a URL link in the email, > you may click on it to open a browser window. However, if you right > click and try to "open link in new window" it does not work. If a window > is open and you simply left click on the link, i

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla link within email issue

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:19:35 +0200, newslett wrote: > When an email is open in Mozilla, and there is a URL link in the email, > you may click on it to open a browser window. However, if you right > click and try to "open link in new window" it does not work. If a window > is open and you simpl

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla link within email issue

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 05:19:35 +0200, newslett wrote : > When an email is open in Mozilla, and there is a URL link in the email, > you may click on it to open a browser window. However, if you right > click and try to "open link in new window" it does not work. If a window > is open and you simply

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla issues with java and other plugins

Johan Ferner said: > Hi, > Just wanted to point your attention at the following bug reports from > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org: > > 116444 - Mozilla and Sun people get a little hot talking about the > plugin problems. Interesting read. > 158385 - Meta bug containing pointers to bug reports for com

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Inter-App font size issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | Hi Cooker Team, | | I wrote a while back regarding the extremely small font size (approx | 8-10 pt.) of fonts (and associated readability problems) within Mozilla | and the fact that these are not AFAIK configurable. I als

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla strangeness (and Texstar question!)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On 20 Jun 2002 18:55:02 +0200 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Fox) wrote: >> I loaded the latest Cooker on my machine (install went fine except for >> the 0 byte gnome-vfs-extras as reported earlier) >> >> My question for you experts out there is: I though the KDE3 from C

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla strangeness (and Texstar question!)

On 20 Jun 2002 18:55:02 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Fox) wrote: > I loaded the latest Cooker on my machine (install went fine except for > the 0 byte gnome-vfs-extras as reported earlier) > > My question for you experts out there is: I though the KDE3 from Cooker > was supposed to install in

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:15:38PM +1000, Ron Stodden wrote: > I wish announcements such as that below would not be made until the > product is ready. This mozilla will not print portrait over many pages > using a duplex printer. In other words, it is useless. I never knew that web browsers

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0.0-4mdk.i586.rpm and Sun JDK?

÷ óÒÄ, 12.06.2002, × 20:11, gabor ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ: > java won't work with mozilla from cooker... > > the problem is that cooker is compiled with gcc3.1, > and java is compiled with something else ( egcs?) > > and those two compilers produce binarily incompatible files.. > > so if you want java, you'll

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0.0-4mdk.i586.rpm and Sun JDK?

java won't work with mozilla from cooker... the problem is that cooker is compiled with gcc3.1, and java is compiled with something else ( egcs?) and those two compilers produce binarily incompatible files.. so if you want java, you'll have to use the www.mozilla.org version. bye, gabor On We

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla PSM

Update your Mozilla 1.0 to version 1.0-04 (the newest in cooker/contrib, it has working PSM) On 11 Jun 2002, Nathan A. Smith wrote: > Hi, > > Stupid question --- but where is the mozilla psm? I went to a secure > site and it complained about not having it. Thanks > > Nasa > > > > -- S

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla PSM

On 11 Jun 2002 14:53:44 -0400 Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:38, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2002 09:18 am, Seppo Järvinen wrote: > > > On 11 Jun 2002, Nathan A. Smith wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Stupid question --- but where is the mozilla

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla PSM

On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:15, Nathan A. Smith wrote: > Hi, > > Stupid question --- but where is the mozilla psm? I went to a secure > site and it complained about not having it. Thanks > > Nasa www.google.com mozilla > psm (or mozilla > "personnal security manager"" ...should get you a mozi

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla PSM

On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:38, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > On Tuesday 11 June 2002 09:18 am, Seppo Järvinen wrote: > > On 11 Jun 2002, Nathan A. Smith wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Stupid question --- but where is the mozilla psm? I went to a > > > secure site and it complained about not having it.

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla PSM

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 09:18 am, Seppo Järvinen wrote: > On 11 Jun 2002, Nathan A. Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Stupid question --- but where is the mozilla psm? I went to a > > secure site and it complained about not having it. Thanks > > Update your Mozilla 1.0 to version 1.0-04 (the newest i

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

> On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 08:46, Litwack, Paul wrote: > Please tell me if you are providing packages of Galeon and Nautilus for > Mozilla 1.0 stable that are going to be compatible with vanilla Mandrake > 8.2, and what the names of these packages might be. I don't want something > as risky as full C

RE: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnomeof Mandrake 8 .2?

> From: gabor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:28 PM > To: cooker > Subject: Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla > 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and > Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2? > > >

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla is b0rkish

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:04:58PM -0500, Steve Fox wrote: > On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 20:56, skidley wrote: > > Try running /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-rebuild-databases.pl and see what > > happens. > > It also moved to /usr/lib/mozilla-1.0.0 and running it did not fix the > problem :( This is a "me t

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:46:31AM -0400, Litwack, Paul wrote: > Please tell me if you are providing packages of Galeon and Nautilus for > Mozilla 1.0 stable that are going to be compatible with vanilla Mandrake > 8.2, and what the names of these packages might be. I don't want something > as risk

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla is b0rkish

On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 20:56, skidley wrote: > Try running /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-rebuild-databases.pl and see what > happens. It also moved to /usr/lib/mozilla-1.0.0 and running it did not fix the problem :( -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla is b0rkish

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 03:40:25PM -0500, Steve Fox wrote: > Besides the Evolution problem stated under the "evolutiondoesn't work" > thread, it looks like Mozilla 1.0.0-2mdk is also having problems with > PSM. It can't do any SSL stuff and tells me to install PSM. I looked on > the server to see

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla is b0rkish

Steve Fox wrote on Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 03:40:25PM -0500 : > Besides the Evolution problem stated under the "evolutiondoesn't work" > thread, it looks like Mozilla 1.0.0-2mdk is also having problems with > PSM. It can't do any SSL stuff and tells me to install PSM. I looked on Poor form on my par

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

inal Message- > From: gabor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:28 PM > To: cooker > Subject: Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla > 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and > Gnome of Mandrake 8 .

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

On Fri, 07 Jun, at 17:27:52 +1200, Bernard Varaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > /have been using the Mozilla 1.0 for quite a while now straight out of > the mozilla fto site.. Yeah, I've been using those too, but I just realised today that they jacked some of the files that evolution looks for

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnomeof Mandrake 8 .2?

/have been using the Mozilla 1.0 for quite a while now straight out of the mozilla fto site.. works great. Bernard/ Litwack, Paul wrote: > Please tell me if you are providing packages of Galeon and Nautilus for > Mozilla 1.0 stable that are going to be compatible with vanilla Mandrake > 8.2,

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

Litwack, Paul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Does mozilla.org provide galeon & nautilus packages? And I need ones that > all fit seamlessly into M8.2. Maybe if you would offer them a sum of money you could distract them from the work they have to do. Groetjes, Han. -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb

RE: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

Does mozilla.org provide galeon & nautilus packages? And I need ones that all fit seamlessly into M8.2. -Original Message- From: gabor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: cooker Subject: Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnomeof Mandrake 8 .2?

On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 07:46, Litwack, Paul wrote: > Please tell me if you are providing packages of Galeon and Nautilus for > Mozilla 1.0 stable that are going to be compatible with vanilla Mandrake > 8.2, and what the names of these packages might be. I don't want something > as risky as full Co

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnomeof Mandrake 8 .2?

why don't you try www.mozilla.org, and use their packages? ( or .tar.gz files)? for example i'm using full cooker, but i still use mozilla from www.mozilla.org, because java doesn't work with cooker-mozilla ( which is compiled with gcc3.x ( 3.1?)).. btw. cooker is not stable, you know it's a tes

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla 1.0 is out. Do we get packages ,Mozilla 1.0 compatible, f or Galeon and Nautilus Compatible with Native KDE and Gnome of Mandrake 8 .2?

Litwack, Paul ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Please tell me if you are providing packages of Galeon and Nautilus > for Mozilla 1.0 stable that are going to be compatible with vanilla > Mandrake 8.2, and what the names of these packages might be. I don't > want something as risky as full Co

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

Am Mittwoch, 29. Mai 2002 20:25 schrieb nDiScReEt: > How is it that konqueror works still with java but not mozilla? What makes > mozilla so differnet? Anybody know or have a clue? AFAIK konqy calls the java binary and does not link the java plugin (as mozilla does) Alexander

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 4:56 pm, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > Hi, > > > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and still > > java > > is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. > > Huh, where did you find rc2.4mdk? Latest is rc2.2mdk and rc2.3mdk will > probab

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 2:47 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2002, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > > * Rejected requested for enhancement: > > > > Not that I want to claim to know anything about JAVA, but maybe we can

Re: One more PLF package? RE: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

--- Gwenole Beauchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > > > So you mean it _is_ possible to build Java with > 3.1? > > Yes. > > > Then what the hell, let's release PLF package for > it. > > No, you can't. > > why ? http://ranger.dnsalias.com/ma

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > > * Rejected requested for enhancement: > > Not that I want to claim to know anything about JAVA, but maybe we can convince IBM or blackdown to compile their JREs with gcc 3.1?

Re: One more PLF package? RE: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin StillBroken

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > So you mean it _is_ possible to build Java with 3.1? Yes. > Then what the hell, let's release PLF package for it. No, you can't.

Re: One more PLF package? RE: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Wednesday 29 May 2002 12:08 am, Borsenkow Andrej wrote: > > > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and > > still > > > > java > > > is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. > > > > Huh, where did you find rc2.4mdk? Latest is rc2.2mdk and rc2.3mdk will

One more PLF package? RE: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

> > > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and still > > java > > is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. > > Huh, where did you find rc2.4mdk? Latest is rc2.2mdk and rc2.3mdk will > probably go in with a fix for building mozilla with gcc3.1 on PPC. >

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 6:35 pm, Ryan T. Sammartino wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 05:12:17PM -0500, nDiScReEt wrote: > > My signature is a program that uses fortune. That last signature is a > > by-product of that script in action. My apologies. > > My sig is also generated by fortune... you wan

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 05:12:17PM -0500, nDiScReEt wrote: > My signature is a program that uses fortune. That last signature is a > by-product of that script in action. My apologies. My sig is also generated by fortune... you want to make sure you use the -s option to say "only short foruntes p

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 4:42 pm, Ben Reser wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:13:57PM -0500, nDiScReEt wrote: > > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and still > > java is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. > > With a signature like that you'll be ve

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

Hi, > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and still > java > is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. Huh, where did you find rc2.4mdk? Latest is rc2.2mdk and rc2.3mdk will probably go in with a fix for building mozilla with gcc3.1 on PPC. The Java

Re: [Cooker] Mozilla Java Plugin Still Broken

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:13:57PM -0500, nDiScReEt wrote: > I build the rpm source package mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.4mdk.src.rpm and still java > is broken. I will try a tarball and see if that works next. With a signature like that you'll be very lucky if anyone bothers to pay any attention to you.

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

On Tue, 21 May 2002 23:03:24 +0200 Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So sprach Reinout van Schouwen am 2002-05-21 um 11:24:46 +0200 : > > This is not Mandrake's fault. See > > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145267 > > But why does it not happen in the "original" mozilla.o

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

So sprach Reinout van Schouwen am 2002-05-21 um 11:24:46 +0200 : > This is not Mandrake's fault. See > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145267 But why does it not happen in the "original" mozilla.org builds? Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quo

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145267

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

Hi, > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145267 Bugs were both in gcc and in Mozilla sources. gcc3.1 is fixed in our -1mdk. Need rebuilding mozilla with the right fix though. Bye, Gwenole.

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

On Mon, 20 May 2002, Jay DeKing wrote: > Yes, I've noticed that as well. Very distracting and disorienting. This is not Mandrake's fault. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145267 -- Reinout van SchouwenArtificial Intelligence student email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk cursor problem

On Wednesday 15 May 2002 06:39 am, I was honored with this communique: > I have another problem with the latest Mozilla, I think it's worse. > In all the textfields and in mail editing, the cursor is always > displayed at the beginning of the current line ! Yes, I've noticed that as well. Very d

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

On Sun, 19 May 2002 15:55:05 -0400 Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Only kde3 is installed. However - how could kdebase3-nsplugins have > anything at all todo with this? The only major pkg difference on my 3 systems is kde3. I singled out nsplugins only because on the 2 system

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

So sprach Pascal Terjan am 2002-05-19 um 23:05:52 +0200 : > I don't have any version of kde, I have the cursor problem in mozilla, The cursor problem must be caused by the way Mandrake builds Mozilla, because in the official mozilla.org Mozilla 1.0rc2 tar ball, the cursor problem doesn't exist.

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

Pascal Terjan wrote: > Charles A Edwards wrote: > >> On Sun, 19 May 2002 13:31:52 -0700 "Robert Zilbauer" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Copy that. I'm seeing the same problem Rolf describes here and I ain't >>> got no kde3 either. >>> >>> On a cooker install synced yesterday, with

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

On Sun, 19 May 2002 16:39:06 -0400 Charles A Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2002 13:31:52 -0700 > "Robert Zilbauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Copy that. I'm seeing the same problem Rolf describes here and I > > ain't got no kde3 either. > > > > > > > On a cooker i

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

Charles A Edwards wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2002 13:31:52 -0700 > "Robert Zilbauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Copy that. I'm seeing the same problem Rolf describes here and I ain't got no >>kde3 either. >> >>On a cooker install synced yesterday, with kde2 installed, no kde3, the >>cursor would

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

On Sun, 19 May 2002 13:31:52 -0700 "Robert Zilbauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Copy that. I'm seeing the same problem Rolf describes here and I ain't got no > kde3 either. > > > On a cooker install synced yesterday, with kde2 installed, no kde3, the > cursor would not follow my typing in a

RE: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

Copy that. I'm seeing the same problem Rolf describes here and I ain't got no kde3 either. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rolf Pedersen Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 1:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] mozilla - e

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

Charles A Edwards wrote: > > I think I may have accidentally stumbled upon the cause, but at the > moment I am still just guessing. The system which exhibits the > problems is the Only 1 of the 3 on which I have installed kde3. Could > the current builds of mozilla and galeon be afflict

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

So sprach Charles A Edwards am 2002-05-19 um 15:35:18 -0400 : > As I said, I am just guessing. > It would be of interest if both those who are having the problem and those who are >not would note if they have kde3 installed. Only kde3 is installed. However - how could kdebase3-nsplugins have an

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

On Sun, 19 May 2002 14:38:39 -0400 Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So sprach Charles A Edwards am 2002-05-19 um 14:17:21 -0400 : > > It works fine for me. > > Geez, you've got quite a strange computer, don't you? ;) Feel lucky > that everything works *G* > > What I wanted to say -

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

So sprach Charles A Edwards am 2002-05-19 um 14:17:21 -0400 : > It works fine for me. Geez, you've got quite a strange computer, don't you? ;) Feel lucky that everything works *G* What I wanted to say - I've also got these problems. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (ge

Re: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

On 19 May 2002 22:00:53 +0400 Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anybody else has this problem? I cannot edit anything in location bar in > current mozilla. I can only delete everything. And galeon completely > stops working (either it tries to access proxy and segfaults or it > comple

RE: [Cooker] mozilla - editing URL in location bar impossible?

The new Mozilla is doing something similar to me, too. I can still edit the text in the bar, but the cursor never changes location. So, even though the cursor isn't keeping pace with where I'm actually typing (and, in fact, isn't moving from the far left side of the bar at all), I can still edit t

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

mention that earlier. Tim >From: "skidley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Tim Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:06:41 -0300 > &

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

skidley wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:58:54AM -0400, Tim Lee wrote: > >>Rebuilding the mozilla 1.0rc2 with gcc 2.96 will enable the use of the java >>plugin with rc2. I rebuilt the source rpm myself and the java plugin works >>fine with rc2. >> >>Hope that helps, >>Tim >> > > I did

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:58:54AM -0400, Tim Lee wrote: > Rebuilding the mozilla 1.0rc2 with gcc 2.96 will enable the use of the java > plugin with rc2. I rebuilt the source rpm myself and the java plugin works > fine with rc2. > > Hope that helps, > Tim > I did rpm --rebuild with gcc-2

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

> "L" == Liam Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: L> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:39:33PM +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote: >> In all the textfields and in mail editing, the cursor is always >> displayed at the beginning of the current line ! For me with RC1, if I accidentally drag any URL

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:39:33PM +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote: > In all the textfields and in mail editing, the cursor is always > displayed at the beginning of the current line ! Same here. Also, I can't get more than one mozilla window showing. File->New->Navigator Window (and ^N) appears to

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

skidley wrote: > Does the mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk.src.rpm require gcc3.1 as well? Can I > build a binary with gcc-2.96 and get the java plugin working again? I have another problem with the latest Mozilla, I think it's worse. In all the textfields and in mail editing, the cursor is always displa

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

> "s" == skidley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: s> My only question is if the src.rpm might be compiled with s> 2.96. Im on dialup and I wouldn't want to waste a 30 MB d/l for s> nothing, I need the java support. I will second that request for the same reason :) -- Gary Lawrence

Re: [Cooker] mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk

On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:01:24AM -0500, nDiScReEt wrote: > On Monday 13 May 2002 11:15 pm, skidley wrote: > > Does the mozilla-1.0-0.rc2.1mdk.src.rpm require gcc3.1 as well? Can I > > build a binary with gcc-2.96 and get the java plugin working again? > > That is weird. My latest cooker is only

Re: [Cooker] mozilla .99 - mail opens in new window

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:57:54 +0200, Michal 'hramrach' Suchanek wrote: > After upgrade to .99-mdk2 I noticed that when I (single)click a mail > message/folder it often opens in new window. I didnt have such problem > in .98-mdk and didnt notice any problems with .99 from mozilla.org but I > did no

Re: [Cooker] mozilla ignores start option set in preferences

Le Sat, 16 Mar 2002 05:03:49 +0100, Helge Hielscher a écrit : > Under Preferences/Appearance you can set what to open when you start > Mozilla. mozilla-0.9.8-9mdk ignores the setting and starts the browser. Thanks for your report.. I hate these kind of bugs :(( It is caused by the -splash optio

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vincent Danen wrote: | On Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 10:45:22AM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: | | |>The other issue with Mozilla, is that an upgrade normally breaks |>Nautilus. I think most would agree that messing with nautilus while |>we're in RC is not a goo

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Thursday 14 March 2002 11:07, Vincent Danen wrote: > If you update mozilla, yes, you have to update nautilus. And galeon. > I think that's all that directly depends on mozilla and are affected > by upgrades. And that other liteweight Mozilla-dependent browser, the name of which I can never

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (Security fix?)

Hoyt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Monday 11 March 2002 11:45 pm, you wrote: > > > Actually, if I'm reading the release notes correctly, it also fixes > > Mozilla's zlib vulnerability. > > I would think that the zlib vulnerability would be a "show-stopper", > especially given the relatively sma

Mozilla 0.9.9 RPMs (Was Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (butwe're in freeze...))

OK, to allow Fred to get back to squashing bugs, and still let some people try Mozilla 0.9.9, I am posting my RPMs at: http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/cooker/mozilla/ Some things are broken: no xmlterm package at the moment (xcat, xls and xmlterm don't arrive in dists/bin and xmlterm.jar d

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 10:45:22AM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: > The other issue with Mozilla, is that an upgrade normally breaks > Nautilus. I think most would agree that messing with nautilus while > we're in RC is not a good idea. > > Nevertheless, I will probably put together a mozilla rpm f

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (Security fix?)

On Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 12:36:31AM -0500, Hoyt wrote: > > Actually, if I'm reading the release notes correctly, it also fixes > > Mozilla's zlib vulnerability. > > I would think that the zlib vulnerability would be a "show-stopper", > especially given the relatively small effort to fix it and th

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2002 20:04, schreef u: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 06:39:34PM +0100, andre wrote: > > I assume that moz is build with the system zlib and not the one that > > comes with moz. Otherwise you could do a security upgrade > > I already answered this last night. But yes it is. You ca

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Op dinsdag 12 maart 2002 10:43, schreef u: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:45 +0100, Christophe Combelles wrote: > > I have been reporting several bugs for mozilla for several weeks, and > > some MAJOR bugs have been fixed. Those bugs that make impossible to send > > a mail to more than 3 or 4 people,

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 06:39:34PM +0100, andre wrote: > I assume that moz is build with the system zlib and not the one that comes > with moz. Otherwise you could do a security upgrade I already answered this last night. But yes it is. You can tell just by the fact that it requires libz.so.1.

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:45 +0100, Christophe Combelles wrote: > I have been reporting several bugs for mozilla for several weeks, and > some MAJOR bugs have been fixed. Those bugs that make impossible to send > a mail to more than 3 or 4 people, because it crashes just by moving the > scrollb

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Lok for yourself: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SPECS/mozilla/mozilla.spec?rev=1.63&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup Buchan, Attempting 0.9.9 build (but 2 non-CVS patches don't take atm ...) David Walser wrote: > Well there were quite a few regressions in 0.98. Are > you g

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:08:21 +0100, Michal Bukovjan wrote: > This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. > > --ms020507020108020109060108 Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Frederic Crozat wrote: > >>On Tue

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Frederic Crozat wrote: >On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:30:49 +0100, Michal Bukovjan wrote: > >I think it was clear enough.. > >>> >>>There WON'T be mozilla 0.9.9 in 8.2.. It is released too late to be >>>tested enough and I'm sure there is new regression in 0.9.9.. >>> >>>I'll see what I can do about the

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

This was _NOT_ meant to go to the list. Please do not get involved or respond, or even acknowledge this email. Much apologies. On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 04:34, Bryan Paxton wrote: > Hey, > Is there some problem you have with me? > I mean if there is, I'd like to get it straightened out. > There _s

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tuesday 12 March 2002 11:30 am, Michal Bukovjan wrote: > >There WON'T be mozilla 0.9.9 in 8.2.. It is released too late to be > >tested enough and I'm sure there is new regression in 0.9.9.. > > > >I'll see what I can do about the mail crasher (the patch is quite > >intrusive and I don't want t

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:30:49 +0100, Michal Bukovjan wrote: > This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. > > --ms050801010204040901020303 Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Frederic Crozat wrote: > >>On Tue

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Hey, Is there some problem you have with me? I mean if there is, I'd like to get it straightened out. There _seems_ to be a lot of hostility coming from you to me... Especially in reply to all this mozilla crap. You did see the email I had sent out _RIGHT_ after the first one, no? I honestly d

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

Frederic Crozat wrote: >On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:45 +0100, Christophe Combelles wrote: > >>I have been reporting several bugs for mozilla for several weeks, and >>some MAJOR bugs have been fixed. Those bugs that make impossible to send >>a mail to more than 3 or 4 people, because it crashes just

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

I have been reporting several bugs for mozilla for several weeks, and some MAJOR bugs have been fixed. Those bugs that make impossible to send a mail to more than 3 or 4 people, because it crashes just by moving the scrollbar of adresses. Please include 0.9.9 Buchan Milne wrote: > The other

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:35:45 +0100, Christophe Combelles wrote: > I have been reporting several bugs for mozilla for several weeks, and > some MAJOR bugs have been fixed. Those bugs that make impossible to send > a mail to more than 3 or 4 people, because it crashes just by moving the > scrollb

Re: [Cooker] mozilla 0.9.9 released! (but we're in freeze...)

The other issue with Mozilla, is that an upgrade normally breaks Nautilus. I think most would agree that messing with nautilus while we're in RC is not a good idea. Nevertheless, I will probably put together a mozilla rpm for myself, and post a url for the brave later ... Buchan Frédéric Cr

<    1   2   3   4   5   >