User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-GB; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 Build Identifier: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7/contrib/mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 When I downloaded the latest stable version of Mozilla (1.7 for Solaris/SPARC), as contributed by Sun Microsystems, I discovered that the package was actually for the x86 platform, not SPARC as listed. Is this a mistake in uploading the files onto the Mozilla website? We can only use the Sun-contributed build of Mozilla here, since the alternative build only supports printing via XPrint which is not installed on our cluster. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
@gisburn: Can you enlighten us here if this is true?
$ uname -a SunOS DEATHSTARII 5.9 Generic_117171-02 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-80 $ wget http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7/contrib/mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 $ ls -l mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 timeless staff 14965994 Jun 22 00:24 mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 $ gtar jxf mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 $ cd mozilla $ ./run-mozilla.sh ./xpcshell js> build(); quit() built on Jun 21 2004 at 19:22:52 $ file xpcshell xpcshell: ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, dynamically linked, stripped All the files included in mozilla and mozilla/components seem to be SPARC files.
Assignee: general → endico
Component: Browser-General → FTP: Staging
Product: Browser → mozilla.org
QA Contact: general → leaf
Version: Trunk → other
Apologies, I have just downloaded the package again and it is, as you suggest, the SPARC architecture build. In my defence, I did double check my original download, though I have clearly made a mistake -- must be that 5pm symptom! To confirm, I have now successfully downloaded and installed the Sun Microsystems-contributed build for the SPARC platform: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7/contrib/mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.7.tar.bz2 and am happy for this bug to be closed. Apologies! I'll aim to do better next time.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
reporter: it's quite possible that they goofed (and fixed their goof after you encountered the problem). but i don't have access to any server logs or energy to chase them (or even figure out who they are today). it's ok, and i certainly wasn't judging you.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.