Phoenix it's light, it's fast, it's *just* a browser, its moz/gecko based.
only at 0.4 but even here in windows land it's what we've waited these long years for t 08:08 PM 12/3/02 +0000, Pigeon wrote: >On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 01:59:11AM -0500, Travis Crump wrote: >> Oki DZ wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 03:24:11AM +0000, Pigeon wrote: >> > >> >>But I've got this infuriating circular problem. It wants to link with >> >>the libraries libjs.a and libjsj.a. What source package are these provided >> >>by? Mozilla. Can I figure out how to get it to build them before it >> >>wants to link with them? No. The docs that came with the package? It's >> >>more or less a case of 'what docs?' >> > >> > Looks like a lot of questions to me... >> > What about setting your sources.list into unstable, and then apt-getting >> > the mozilla-snapshot? I've been using it for a while; I don't think that >> > I have encountered the problems you had. >> > >> > Oki >> >> I am guessing, but since libjs.a and libjsj.a aren't in the current >> compiled mozilla tree[there is libjsj.so, but nothing ~close~ to >> libjs.a], I think he is trying to compile the slink version of mozilla, >> a snapshot from 10/1998. This is pretty much guaranteed to be a piece >> of crap no matter how you compile it. > >Read the first line of my original post... :-) > >I thought all versions of netscape/mozilla were crap, just some were >more crap than others? > >I'm used to using Netscape 4.06 in Windoze. I find it OK, apart from >occasionally wanting 400 meg of memory for no apparent reason, and the >continual javascript errors - which probably mean some really annoying >piece of crap on the website has just failed, so I don't mind that. >The slink mozilla, which is schizy and calls itself Netscape Lite >5.0a1, looks and feels pretty much the same, apart from lacking some >of the flashy extra bits which I never use anyway. So I'm happy with >it, apart from infuriating stuff like the URL bar not working and the >error messages which occur while everything is working. > >Looking at the woody version, the complexity of the source is vastly >greater but the documentation is if anything worse. And it seems I >still need extra stuff to compile it, and what's the point of the >latest version? I like to stick with the earliest version that >provides all the features I want, cos it's generally smaller and >faster, and there isn't a shed-load of extra crap getting in the way. > >(I once tried Netscape 6 in Windoze on a 90Mz Pentium. Forget it. >S...o... s....l.....o.......w........ I can't drink that much tea.) > >The slink mozilla deb includes libjs.a but not libjsj.a. There isn't >(correct me if I'm wrong) a website with a package search page for the >slink archives, but looking for clues by searching woody from the >website, I find that libjsj.a is provided by libmozillasomething-dev >(forget the exact name), the source code of which is the whole mozilla >source package. And indeed the slink mozilla compilation is trying to >build a libjsj.a, a half-assed debug version that is not complete >enough to allow me to use it as a fudge. > >I know this is an old package, but there must be someone out there who >remembers compiling it when it was a new package? > >Pigeon > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
