From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 BuildID: 20020319 (self-compiled) Redhat 7.2 comes with Mozilla 0.9.2.1-2 . This: # wget http://(mozilla)/mozilla0.9.9/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/SRPMS/mozilla-0.9.9-0.src.rpm # rpm -hiv mozilla-0.9.9-0.src.rpm # rpm -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/mozilla-0.9.9.spec # rpm -Uhv /usr/rsc/redhat/RPMS/i386/mozilla*.rpm results in a huge pile of conflicts. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Follow the procedure in "description". Actual Results: Long list of errors in the style of file /usr/lib/mozilla/components/libpipnss.so from install of mozilla-psm-0.9.9-0 conflicts with file from package mozilla-psm-0.9.2.1-2 at steps 4 and 6 below. Expected Results: exit 0 This workaround worked: 1# wget http://(mozilla)/mozilla0.9.9/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/SRPMS/mozilla-0.9.9-0.src.rpm 2# rpm -hiv mozilla-0.9.9-0.src.rpm 3# rpm -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/mozilla-0.9.9.spec 4# rpm -Uhv /usr/rsc/redhat/RPMS/i386/mozilla*.rpm 5# rpm -e --nodeps mozilla 6# rpm -hiv /usr/rsc/redhat/RPMS/i386/mozilla*.rpm 7# rpm -hiv --force /usr/rsc/redhat/RPMS/i386/mozilla*.rpm (galeon among others requires --nodeps and rpm itself forces --force). The system is a Redhat 7.2 standard workstation with all the updates until 17-03-2002. Something needs to be fixed in the .spec file, it methinks.
Forgot: between steps 5 and 6 in the workaround, # rm -rf /usr/lib/mozilla rpm -Uhv and rpm -hiv kept reporting conflicts even after the mozilla directory had been removed, hence --force . The installation that resulted out of this works fine, so this whole issue has to do with rpm trimming and not with the functionality of Mozilla itself.
If you're running these rpms, you have to know what you are doing. Not really a bug.
> ------- Additional Comments From firstname.lastname@example.org 2002-03-20 10:29 ------- > If you're running these rpms, you have to know what you are doing. Not really a > bug. Thank you, that's really very informative. You might be right or wrong, but I deal with enough arrogant idiots every day to not need any more of this attitude. If you see something wrong in what I did, the least you could do is say what that is, for my sake and that of others. If you can't be bothered to at least do that, then don't ask for bug reports from people that don't know what they're doing. In short: **** you too. Z
I wasn't being arrogant. If you are going to try to install these on Red Hat 7.2, you have to know that you're going to have to rebuild some other components and you're going to have to know how to drive rpm to get the proper bits upgraded. I was also saying that this isn't a bug in Mozilla. In short: chill out. C
OK, fine, you were not being arrogant. But you are still not informative at all. For one, these bug reports are helpful even in "no bug" situations, so you could make the effort to mention exactly which "other components" need be rebuilt and how to "drive rpm to get the proper bits upgraded". Besides, if anything needs to be rebuilt outside Mozilla, it should be in the dependencies list of the rpm, shouldn't it? This might not be a bug in Mozilla, but it still looks like a bug in the rpm to me and it is certainly a bug in the documentation.
this is ridiculous. I'm outta here.
16 years ago
Heavens... why is this still open? INVALID.