Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere?

[Anthony Atkielski]

I'm currently struggling with the Xfce environment and I'd like to
install Firefox, but neither the Firefox site nor anywhere else I've
looked thus far has comprehensive installation instructions for the
product on FreeBSD (or any flavor of UNIX, apparently). Is there a page
somewhere that describes how it is done? The installer is complaining
about a library that I don't have (libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0), even though I
thought I had everything I needed.

--
Anthony

[Kent Stewart]

On Saturday 26 February 2005 03:41 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> I'm currently struggling with the Xfce environment and I'd like to
> install Firefox, but neither the Firefox site nor anywhere else I've
> looked thus far has comprehensive installation instructions for the
> product on FreeBSD (or any flavor of UNIX, apparently). Is there a
> page somewhere that describes how it is done? The installer is
> complaining about a library that I don't have (libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0),
> even though I thought I had everything I needed.

It appears to be built as a compat lib. Locate places it in
/usr/compat/linux/usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

Kent

--
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

[url]http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html[/url]

[markzero]

> I'm currently struggling with the Xfce environment and I'd like to

> install Firefox, but neither the Firefox site nor anywhere else I've
> looked thus far has comprehensive installation instructions for the
> product on FreeBSD (or any flavor of UNIX, apparently). Is there a page
> somewhere that describes how it is done? The installer is complaining
> about a library that I don't have (libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0), even though I
> thought I had everything I needed.
>
> --
> Anthony

# pkg-add -r firefox

or

# cd /usr/ports/www/firefox && make install clean distclean

That's what ports and packages are there for, after all.

--
PGP: [url]http://www.darklogik.org/pub/pgp/pgp.txt[/url]
B776 43DC 8A5D EAF9 2126 9A67 A7DA 390F DEFF 9DD1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iQIVAwUBQiBjY6faOQ/e/53RAQrl1BAAzfVoGSqK0Myck32314FBJ8eGJKjQnEAT
pQWnOJwo8Y9zRaifjqjOi7zXne2rBXQ8kQg6cuXo/EMxABZU6+RtgV2UufgRKY2/
9RT1gb4EfOotqJ0kc5QGIgCDOEbhmJcl6ZXJPRgv/DdvxxZTV+d/+jbkCRjOPBf3
7hXrY7xnN4zF2C1O9pTrR6mkzWct8IT8B72CRkjrMEs22vVywl WrdhDG8gyTaSwm
ZRLxdTLP0i0MzB9Cx53Q9WU/q/7eq6JdsU0YqES1iZk38fSupld+mf+2AU9njtp2
+jZY838OjHR1e/XnYJE3uWn85dSxK/sDwpsD+Z0r9zeJUpkrEFFWVajF486uyFmr
wfFBq10QEZzOhNbtpjMiZHt3O4SNR6+bh8uuZ9uqBSleyOl9xs Usg6nBijRhpeH5
9v7LtM1+416IXR8D032N8grxPuDM6qkxrBJQHeg1hOnLXlTwxN revhIbx23tkmm+
WqnDSIwsZxu2Fd1GrVEGKICQpKTdnSEIIpDVi7M1bURxC58bsR bOfWVXdW8gvmJD
gEMeyOqj6Duaq5HKADu3JKBgnFODQUL3MZtIo6A/0JG4mmschC++CzaRotKisu5l
BGO5GhVLNnRmMBN9kR6O6j9RkuwQRK9pKBrRvLBnuk3hKlb7YT eGuzTsu/6PohPO
eK5YnWh8GBk=
=4fuc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[albi@scii.nl]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:41:52 +0100
Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> I'm currently struggling with the Xfce environment and I'd like to
> install Firefox, but neither the Firefox site nor anywhere else I've
> looked thus far has comprehensive installation instructions for the
> product on FreeBSD (or any flavor of UNIX, apparently).

1) if you want to use the plain FreeBSD-version you have basically 2
(easy) options :
a) if you're sticking to RELEASE, a pkg_add -r firefox should work
b) cd /usr/ports/www/firefox/ ; make install clean

2) if you want to use the linux-version, check the /usr/ports/www/
linux-firefox port

if you've never used the ports, make sure to read this :
[url]http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cvsup.html[/url]
and /usr/ports/UPDATING

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email]owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org[/email]
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of [email]albi@scii.nl[/email]
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 4:02 AM
> To: [email]freebsd-questions@freebsd.org[/email]
> Subject: Re: Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere?
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:41:52 +0100
> Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>

> > I'm currently struggling with the Xfce environment and I'd like to
> > install Firefox, but neither the Firefox site nor anywhere else I've
> > looked thus far has comprehensive installation instructions for the
> > product on FreeBSD (or any flavor of UNIX, apparently).

>
>
> 1) if you want to use the plain FreeBSD-version you have basically 2
> (easy) options :
> a) if you're sticking to RELEASE, a pkg_add -r firefox should work
> b) cd /usr/ports/www/firefox/ ; make install clean
>

Do a portupgrade first. Firefox depends on a lot of stuff.

> 2) if you want to use the linux-version, check the /usr/ports/www/
> linux-firefox port
>

You don't want to use this version. It's slower.

Ted

[Anthony Atkielski]

markzero writes:

> # pkg-add -r firefox

I tried that, and it works, but the version installed is a preview
version that's well behind the current 1.0.1. And even after installing
it from the ports, I still can't install the most recent version; it
keeps complaining about that missing module.

> That's what ports and packages are there for, after all.

Yes, but the versions are not always current. I've used the ports to
install most of the stuff, as long as the version numbers were recent.

--
Anthony

[Anthony Atkielski]

Kent Stewart writes:

> It appears to be built as a compat lib. Locate places it in
> /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

It's not there on my system. I did install Linux compatibility, and the
directory is there and filled with files, but that specific file is not
present. How do I put it there?

--
Anthony

[Anthony Atkielski]

Ted Mittelstaedt writes:

> Do a portupgrade first. Firefox depends on a lot of stuff.

I don't have the ports on the local machine. I go directly to the FTP
server each time I install something. Shouldn't they all be up to date
in that case?

The only Firefox version I see is 0.9, even though the current one is
1.0.1.

--
Anthony

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>
>

>>Do a portupgrade first. Firefox depends on a lot of stuff.

>
>
> I don't have the ports on the local machine. I go directly to the FTP
> server each time I install something. Shouldn't they all be up to date
> in that case?
>
> The only Firefox version I see is 0.9, even though the current one is
> 1.0.1.
>

This is simple. As someone has pointed out before, you need cvsup the
ports tree then a portupgrade. Yes, after the cvsup and portupgrade you
will have 1.0.1

Also note, that even after a cvsup and portupgrade, you will not always
have the latest, greatest version of a port. It all depends on the
maintainer of the port and how much time they have to do the work etc,
etc, etc.

--
Best regards,
Chris

No matter how large the work space, if two projects
must be done at the same time they will require the
same part of the work space.

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris writes:

> This is simple. As someone has pointed out before, you need cvsup the
> ports tree then a portupgrade. Yes, after the cvsup and portupgrade you
> will have 1.0.1

There is no ports tree on the machine, so it cannot be out of date.
Isn't the index downloaded from the FTP site each time I start
sysinstall always up to date? If not, how can I update something that
isn't even on my system?

--
Anthony

[John]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:14:19 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote

> Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
>

> > Do a portupgrade first. Firefox depends on a lot of stuff.

>
> I don't have the ports on the local machine. I go directly to the
> FTP server each time I install something. Shouldn't they all be up
> to date in that case?
>
> The only Firefox version I see is 0.9, even though the current one is
> 1.0.1.

It would help you if you installed the ports tree and portupgrade (and cvsup
it every day via cron to keep it up-to-date). If you did that, you would bave
been able to do like I have just done:

root@bob0# portupgrade -rR firefox
[Updating the pkgdb <format:bdb1_btree> in /var/db/pkg ... - 241 packages found
---> Upgrading 'firefox-1.0_7,1' to 'firefox-1.0.1,1' (www/firefox)

[etc]

just makes life easier instead of manually adding packages..
--
[email]lists@reiteration.net[/email]

[Anthony Atkielski]

John writes:

> It would help you if you installed the ports tree and portupgrade (and cvsup
> it every day via cron to keep it up-to-date). If you did that, you would bave
> been able to do like I have just done:

But I figured that if I always pull the index from an FTP site, it's
guaranteed to be up to date. Isn't that true? I'm never going to
install more than a small fraction of the ports, so putting the entire
tree on my site seems wasteful, especially if I have to constantly
update it. I do have the tree on my production server, but only because
I had a lot more disk space to play with.

--
Anthony

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Chris writes:
>
>

>>This is simple. As someone has pointed out before, you need cvsup the
>>ports tree then a portupgrade. Yes, after the cvsup and portupgrade you
>>will have 1.0.1

>
>
> There is no ports tree on the machine, so it cannot be out of date.
> Isn't the index downloaded from the FTP site each time I start
> sysinstall always up to date? If not, how can I update something that
> isn't even on my system?
>

If you don't have the ports tree (/usr/ports) on the box, put it there.
You can do this either via sysinstall or nab the ports tarball from FBSD.


--
Best regards,
Chris

If you fool around with a thing for very long you will
screw it up.

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> John writes:
>
>

>>It would help you if you installed the ports tree and portupgrade (and cvsup
>>it every day via cron to keep it up-to-date). If you did that, you would bave
>>been able to do like I have just done:

>
>
> But I figured that if I always pull the index from an FTP site, it's
> guaranteed to be up to date. Isn't that true? I'm never going to
> install more than a small fraction of the ports, so putting the entire
> tree on my site seems wasteful, especially if I have to constantly
> update it. I do have the tree on my production server, but only because
> I had a lot more disk space to play with.
>

Read the CVSup info on the FBSD site. There are ways (it escapes me at
the moment) to exclude things from the cvsup, IE: languages etc.

--
Best regards,
Chris

If you fool around with a thing for very long you will
screw it up.

[Anthony Atkielski]

Chris writes:

> If you don't have the ports tree (/usr/ports) on the box, put it there.

I don't have 300 MB to spare, particularly for something that I will use
so rarely.

What's wrong with getting the index from the FTP site when I run
sysinstall? Seems to me that it would guarantee that the ports are
always up to date.

--
Anthony

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Chris writes:
>
>

>>If you don't have the ports tree (/usr/ports) on the box, put it there.

>
>
> I don't have 300 MB to spare, particularly for something that I will use
> so rarely.
>
> What's wrong with getting the index from the FTP site when I run
> sysinstall? Seems to me that it would guarantee that the ports are
> always up to date.
>

I can't honestly answer that one. There is also a command to fetch the
index (without the need for sysinstall).

What you propose seems logical - I have never been faced with a space
issue, so I can't answer one way or the other.

--
Best regards,
Chris

If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.

[Chris Hodgins]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> John writes:
>
>

>>It would help you if you installed the ports tree and portupgrade (and cvsup
>>it every day via cron to keep it up-to-date). If you did that, you would bave
>>been able to do like I have just done:

>
>
> But I figured that if I always pull the index from an FTP site, it's
> guaranteed to be up to date. Isn't that true? I'm never going to
> install more than a small fraction of the ports, so putting the entire
> tree on my site seems wasteful, especially if I have to constantly
> update it. I do have the tree on my production server, but only because
> I had a lot more disk space to play with.
>

There is a port called porteasy that you could use to grab only what you
want from the port tree. Not used it myself before but I have seen a
few people mention it. You should be aware though that by installing
firefox you will be installing a lot of other ports that firefox depends
on as well.

Chris

[Kevin Kinsey]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Chris writes:
>
>

>>If you don't have the ports tree (/usr/ports) on the box, put it there.
>>
>>

>
>I don't have 300 MB to spare, particularly for something that I will use
>so rarely.
>
>What's wrong with getting the index from the FTP site when I run
>sysinstall? Seems to me that it would guarantee that the ports are
>always up to date.
>
>

Well, I've been under the impression for a while that sysinstall
is not necessarily reliable in terms of getting the most current
information; not because of its design, necessarily, but because
of some details about layout, building world, etc. Keep in mind
that this is "my take" on the question, and I'm basically nobody
(and will mention that fact again.)

A crunched binary version of sysinstall exists in /stand. A couple
(or 3?? - I knew this once) of years ago sysinstall was moved to
/usr/sbin in -CURRENT and now lives there in the 5.X branch. On
a 5.X machine, then, you have two "sysinstalls" that may or may not
be the same date, (and most likely aren't) and certainly may vary
in some way:

[668] Sat 26.Feb.2005 14:14:01
[kadmin@local][~]
ll /usr/sbin/sysinstall && ll /stand/sysinstall
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 411336 Feb 12 10:34 /usr/sbin/sysinstall*
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 2148964 Apr 23 2004 /stand/sysinstall*

Now consider the following note Murray Stokely writes in
/doc/en/articles/releng/ (he's discussing preparatory steps
for building a RELEASE):

"Sysinstall should be updated to note the number of available
ports and the amount of disk space required for the Ports Collection.
This information is currently kept in src/release/sysinstall/dist.c."

So, it's my best guess (as I said, IANAE) that /usr/sbin/sysinstall
will not know about anything later than the date obtained by
"uname -a" (last system rebuild, whatever), and /stand/sysinstall
may have hoplessly out of date information (unless you are in
the habit of crunching new binaries for /stand every time you
upgrade the system; most people probably don't<?>).

Now, I'm not saying I'm right, because I don't even know
the exact procedure you're describing in using sysinstall
for "getting the index", but most of my experiences using
it to try and do anything in terms of packages/ports seem
to indicate that it has basically one idea of where to look,
and that idea isn't the newest ports tree. I could be wrong.

Kevin Kinsey

[Kent Stewart]

On Saturday 26 February 2005 05:01 am, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Kent Stewart writes:

> > It appears to be built as a compat lib. Locate places it in
> > /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

>
> It's not there on my system. I did install Linux compatibility, and
> the directory is there and filled with files, but that specific file
> is not present. How do I put it there?

I don't know. I grepped my installworld logs and it was not added by a
current update. I use firefox but always build it. I don't have any
logs of the portupgrade build of firefox.

FWIW, the fetchindex INDEX[-56] file is being updated on a 3 hour
schedule.

Kent

--
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

[url]http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html[/url]

[Kevin Kinsey]

Kevin Kinsey wrote:

> Well, I've been under the impression for a while that sysinstall
> is not necessarily reliable ...

<big snip>

I need to add, in order that my previous post not go into the archives
as "absolute" fact, and that I not be considered by the general public
as more of an idiot than I might already have confirmed, that I
don't use sysinstall for much, and did just go back into that
program to the location "Configure > Options", where you can set
an {environment?} variable for sysinstall to look for a certain
release.

Now, if that can be set to "CURRENT" (or, more likely, "HEAD"),
then sysinstall might well grab you a current ports index ... if
it can do *that* at all.

I am sure that if your sysinstall is set to, say, 5.1-RELEASE (which
is no longer supported), it's not likely to find any packages at all.

Sorry for the FUD, if it's considered thusly.

Kevin Kinsey