Closed Bug 511414 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

installing fennec from .tar.bz2 to storage card yields a lot of errors

Categories

(Firefox for Android Graveyard :: General, defect)

Product:
Firefox for Android Graveyard
Component:
General
Platform:
ARM
Maemo
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(fennec1.0-)

Status:
VERIFIED INVALID
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
fennec 1.0- ---

People

(Reporter: jmaher, Unassigned)

Details

I have been installing my builds from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mobile-1.9.2/fennec-1.0b3pre.en-US.linux-gnueabi-arm.tar.bz2 and putting it on my /media/mmc1 storage card. then via ssh I run /media/mmc1/release/fennec/fennec and it launches. The problem is a lot of bugs are showing up and aakashd and ctalbert can't reproduce them. To get this working, I did this instead: downloaded .deb files to <device>:~/ dpkg -i *.deb launch fennec from os2008 menu system We need to figure out why this is failing and what forms of installation we support.
This problems resulted in litmus testcases dealing with autocomplete failing. I'm setting this to blocking-fennec?
tracking-fennec: --- → ?
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0?
I haven't seen this problem myself, but since debs are the way we want people to install, not going to block.
tracking-fennec: ? → 1.0-
my best guess is that the problem is installing to the storage card and not the tar.gz vs. .deb. The system mounts that noexec by default (so you can't run anything from it). You've obviously fixed that since you launched, but still the devices wasn't intended to have anything running from the storage card.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Flags: wanted-fennec1.0? → wanted-fennec1.0-
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Right. I've run into enough issues running off of vfat to not want to try that again. We are planning on booting off an SD card (formatted ext2) in the not too distant future, but we're able to pass a decent number of tests running that way. I think it's a vfat issue.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
sorry for bug spam. Many of the bugs which are marked invalid, I see comments telling it occurred in one version or other. But later it was fixed due to 1) by backingout the patch which made regression or 2) by fixing some other bug. So if we can identify the bug/patch/reason then we should state that and mark those as FIXED. If not mark as WORKSFORME in that case.
Component: Linux/Maemo → General
QA Contact: maemo-linux → general
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.