[blfs-dev] FireFox 29.0.1
me at pc-networking-services.com
Mon Jun 2 16:41:19 PDT 2014
On Tue, June 3, 2014 11:19 am, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:29:55AM +1200, Christopher Gregory wrote:
>> Well I don't know if it will ever be narrowed down, as it appears to be
>> one of these random things that affect some and not others.
>> I have a:
>> model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2300 @ 1.66GHz
>> centino duo 32 bit processor.
>> Maybe this weirdness is in some way unique to a 32bit system?
> For the two occasions that I can remember firefox crashing at
> sourceforge, I'm 99% certain that I was on x86_64. But for me, firefox has
> always crashed from time to time - and been ok when I retry the page I was
> trying to read.
>> As for using the system cairo, It states in the mozconfig file that if
>> we want to use the system cairo to uncomment the line. Also on the
>> cairo installation page it states that in order to use cairo with
>> firefox the enable-tee option must be used.
> Personally, I think people ought to use the system versions of
> libraries whenever possible. When I _measure_ firefox and xulrunner for
> BLFS, I use the options in the book. But before that, I build
> and run it/them with system libraries and check that things seem to be
>> If we are NOT meant to be using the system cairo with firefox, perhaps
>> a note in the mozconfig woud be appropriate, along with the removal of
>> the enable-tee option on the cairo page?
> Armin has a different view, but he is no longer editing BLFS and at the
> moment I do not share his view. For myself, I have not seen anything which
> indicates there is a common problem with firefox using system cairo. As
> always, much can change from one user to another and problems might be
> down to specific sites.
> I would not object to adding a note in the mozconfigs along the
> lines of "some people report that this can make firefox crash at certain
> sites", but I'm uncertain about what wording I would be willing to accept
> for that, and ideally it ought to fit into at most two lines!
> It isn't a problem I can reliably re-create, so I'm reluctant to do
> this. One of the problems with many older sets of notes is that they
> become out of date but get carried forward regardless. Presumably, when
> the next stable version of cairo gets released, the problem will
> I suppose we could commit the upstream cairo patch, but since I
> can't recreate the problem I'm not in a rush to do that (too much else -
> non-BLFS - to do).
>> I only meantion that regarding cairo as I have just read through all
>> the comments and noticed one person said to use the bunndled cairo.
>> The thing is, that so far, with that patch applied, firefox is at this
>> stage behaving itself.
>> Sorry about resending, but I am using webmail and accidently clicked on
>> send before finishing the email.
> What really puzzles me is why some firefox issues seem to affect
> very few people. On one of my older systems I had to change _something_ in
> the last couple of months when I upgraded firefox (I no longer remember
> the details, but I think it was a specific version of gcc which caused it)
> and found one open firefox bug showing the exact problem. But a lot of
> people build firefox on, or for, old systems using i686 or x86_64 (e.g.
> distros do it!) and nobody else had seen the problem.
> Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady.
> Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m.
Yes that is what is also puzzleing me. Why you and others have no issues
with the sites crashing, and why it is affecting me and one or two others.
Makes it next to impossible to fix. It is why I posted this thread in the
first place. I wanted to make sure to avoid anything that could be a
potential problem, so I just installed what was needed for firefox system
wise and had installed absolutely no additions to firefox to try and
narrow down the problem.
As you noticed in some of my past builds, I seem to encounter problems
that no one else has, so this time round, I ditched seperate /usr, ditched
using dracut to build the initramfs, and indeed am not using initramfs at
all now. Plus I built the base LFS using jhalfs to further confirm that
things have been built as per the instructions.
I guess these little quirks are the joys of computing, but if everyone has
built things the same way, and some have issues and others don't it gets
really frustrating, as for me it makes me wonder if I have actually done
something wrong somewhere along the line.
More information about the blfs-dev