[Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Karl Dahlke]

Prompted by Adam's message, I tried an experiment.
I pulled the latest rpm package from Fedora for the js library,
and installed it, and it worked.
Emboldend by this, I pulled down the development package,
installed the headers, rebuilt everything,
now using just the command make rather than make
with a bunch of arguments, and built,
and ran jsrt through its paces, and it worked.

ftp://rpmfind.net
login anonymous
cd /linux/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/i386/os/Packages/m
get mozjs24-24.2.0-3.fc21.i686.rpm
get mozjs24-devel-24.2.0-3.fc21.i686.rpm

Notice it is exactly the same version we are using from source.
So the debian problem is perhaps debian specific,
and not systemic.

At this point I am tempted to remove all the js I built from source,
as it takes up almost 2 gig.

So ... this is an interesting, and I hope helpful, data point.
Edbrowse works on Fedora.
Too bad we haven't convinced redhat to carry edbrowse yet.

Karl Dahlke

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Charles Hallenbeck]

I just noticed that on my archlinux system, the default js library is js24, and so I tried an experiment. In the src
directoryh of edbrowse, I did a make clean, then make, and it compiled and linked without any complaints. I think that's
cool! I had also just done a git pull, so it's the latest 3.5.1 source I'm using.


-- 

 Chuck in Ghent, northeast of Hudson on the Hudson.

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Adam Thompson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 07:10:18AM -0400, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
> I just noticed that on my archlinux system, the default js library is js24, and so I tried an experiment. In the src
> directoryh of edbrowse, I did a make clean, then make, and it compiled and linked without any complaints. I think that's
> cool! I had also just done a git pull, so it's the latest 3.5.1 source I'm using.

That's good to hear. At least we can be fairly sure it's not something we're doing.
The only thing I can think of is that it's a Debian-specific patch or specific
build flags which don't match how we're building edbrowse,
however until we know more about how the debian package is built it's just 
speculation.

As a long-time Debian user it's a shame for me that I can't just build against
the packaged version of mozjs. It's also slightly strange that Debian has a
(broken) mozjs 26 package as well. I'm not sure what this is based on but I'd
quite like to find out.

Cheers,
Adam.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Chris Brannon]

Karl Dahlke <eklhad@comcast.net> writes:

> So the debian problem is perhaps debian specific,
> and not systemic.

Yep.  It's been working on Gentoo with their mozjs 24 package for as
long as we've been working with mozjs 24.
It works out of the box on three distros now.  This is definitely a
Debian-specific issue.  I'd like to know what's wrong, because they're so
popular, and they do package edbrowse.

-- Chris

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[MENGUAL Jean-Philippe]

Hi,

Well you won't believe it, but yes, I can work fully on edbrowse 
packaging now! Sorry for the delay but I had emergencies (books, change 
flat, etc) and my Debian sid didn't 9ork anymore so far.

My 1st question is: where are the changes for JS in Edbrowse? Is there a 
new release? Is it in the snapshot? Are changes in 4.10? If yes I'll try 
again compiling a 4.10, it's this I see on the website. Otherwise I wait 
for your info. I have already a ready package for 4.10 if it contains JS 
fixes.
Be sure now, edbrowse is my priority of next weeks to get a package in 
Debian which works with JS!

Best regards,

Le 15/04/2014 14:48, Chris Brannon a écrit :
> Karl Dahlke <eklhad@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> So the debian problem is perhaps debian specific,
>> and not systemic.
> Yep.  It's been working on Gentoo with their mozjs 24 package for as
> long as we've been working with mozjs 24.
> It works out of the box on three distros now.  This is definitely a
> Debian-specific issue.  I'd like to know what's wrong, because they're so
> popular, and they do package edbrowse.
>
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Edbrowse-dev mailing list
> Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com
> http://lists.the-brannons.com/mailman/listinfo/edbrowse-dev
>


-- 

Jean-Philippe MENGUAL

accelibreinfo, votre partenaire en informatique adaptée aux déficients visuels

Mail: texou@accelibreinfo.eu

Site Web: http://www.accelibreinfo.eu

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Adam Thompson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:13:12PM +0200, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> Well you won't believe it, but yes, I can work fully on edbrowse packaging
> now! Sorry for the delay but I had emergencies (books, change flat, etc) and
> my Debian sid didn't 9ork anymore so far.

That's ok, glad to hear you're able to work on it again.

> My 1st question is: where are the changes for JS in Edbrowse? Is there a new
> release? Is it in the snapshot? Are changes in 4.10? If yes I'll try again
> compiling a 4.10, it's this I see on the website. Otherwise I wait for your
> info. I have already a ready package for 4.10 if it contains JS fixes.

The current js-related stuff is only in the git repository as far as I know.
We are awaiting the fix for Debian before we make our next release as currently
the code cannot be compiled under Debian and come out with a working program
using packaged libraries.

The git repo is available at:
https://github.com/CMB/edbrowse

> Be sure now, edbrowse is my priority of next weeks to get a package in
> Debian which works with JS!
That's great news.

Cheers,
Adam.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [Edbrowse-dev] debian and redhat

[Adam Thompson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

Hi,

> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:13:12PM +0200, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> > Well you won't believe it, but yes, I can work fully on edbrowse packaging
> > now! Sorry for the delay but I had emergencies (books, change flat, etc) and
> > my Debian sid didn't 9ork anymore so far.

I was just wondering if there were any progress updates on this?
Also is there anything we can do to help?
As I use Debian as my primary operating system is there anything you would like
testing or anything else I can do to help get this working?

In terms of releases, as I said, we're holding the 3.5 release until we can
understand what's happening with Debian.
Would it be more useful if we go ahead with the release and then accept patches afterwards?

Cheers,
Adam.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]