 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> > Noscript. Enable it to not run scripts unless you decide a site is
>> > trusted.
>
>> Good idea, except it's my own script. :-)
>
> Firefox is open source. Fix it. ;)
Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Firefox is open source. Fix it. ;)
>
> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
emerge firefox
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>
> emerge firefox
>
The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
quickly:
Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
merge time: 45 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
>
> Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
>
Yes, that's *only* the firefox package. It's also possible that my PC is
faster than yours.
Noted, XMMS takes longer :):
Sun Oct 18 08:55:33 2009 >>> media-sound/xmms-1.2.11
merge time: 51 seconds.
And even OpenOffice.org took under 1 hour:
Thu Oct 15 14:35:38 2009 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.1.1
merge time: 53 minutes and 28 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 01:26, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009>>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>
> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>
>
Well yes, it surely does.
Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>
>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>
>>
>
> Well yes, it surely does.
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
On mine it typically takes an hour.
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>>
>>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well yes, it surely does.
>>
>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>
> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
Maybe he has ccache.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 18:10, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
>> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
>
> Maybe he has ccache.
That would make some sense...except that I've enabled it as well.
Doesn't ccache only have a significant impact if you're recompiling the
same version?
--
When you die, you lose a very important part of your life.
-- Brooke Shields
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
