Re: updated mozsupport package

On 28.02.16 21:13, Dave Yeo wrote:
> On 02/28/16 11:48 AM, Steve Wendt wrote:
>> On 02/28/2016 09:21 AM, Doug Bissett wrote:
>>
>>> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things
>>
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: until/unless you can run
>> "yum install firefox seamonkey thunderbird" the current process they are
>> using is broken. Even once that works, it would still be nice to have a
>> ZIP/WPI version that is statically linked.
>
> Well their plan does involve building RPM packages of FF, SM and TB, not
> sure if using my binaries or building them themselves. They also plan on
> removing MOZILLA_HOME and replacing it with %HOME% as that is how Redhat
> does it and they seem to have forgotten that this is _not_ Linux.

I really wonder where you got that from. Yes there is a ticket, but we 
are not planning to remove any functionality. We might enhance it, that 
if no MOZILLA_HOME is present we use %HOME%. But not even this is certain.

Another not true thinggy is, that our builds need iconv2.dll. Our builds 
use the libc iconv engine in intl8.dll. There is another gettext version 
on hobbes which iirc uses/needs iconv2.dll. So for the maintainers of 
the mozzsupport package, please be aware of that.

regards
Silvan
CTO at bww bitwise works GmbH

> Really they should have a virtual Mozilla package that installs all the
> prerequisites but since Redhat doesn't do that...
> I wouldn't mind building static linked packages, but it is not as simple
> as it should be and there should also be some discussion on which
> libraries should be static and which dynamic.
> Dave