Firefox depending on avidemux?
in [Mandrake]
|
Prev: Cluster Setup
Next: Which Graphics card
From: Ari Järmälä on 11 Sep 2006 17:17 Trying to update Firefox with MandrivaUpdate and it wants to remove avidemux-2.1.0-0.1.20060plf.i586. But I don't want my avidemux to be removed. How to solve this? Rgs, Ari J?rm?l? ---cut--- Seuraavat paketit pit?? poistaa jotta muita voitaisiin p?ivitt??: avidemux-2.1.0-0.1.20060plf.i586 (t?ytt?m?tt?m?n mozilla-firefox == 1.0.6 takia) Sopiiko ett? jatkan? ---tuc---
From: David W. Hodgins on 11 Sep 2006 20:41 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:17:01 -0400, Ari J?rm?l? <jarmala(a)2pcuf2.3fi3.invalid> wrote: > Trying to update Firefox with MandrivaUpdate and it wants to remove > avidemux-2.1.0-0.1.20060plf.i586. But I don't want my avidemux to be > removed. How to solve this? Use the command line ... # urpmi mozilla-firefox --allow-nodeps --allow-force I find mozilla products often have dependencies on specific versions of other packages, such a yelp, but work fine with newer versions, when you override the dependency checks. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: Ari Järmälä on 12 Sep 2006 11:29 Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:41:49 -0400, David W. Hodgins kirjoitti: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:17:01 -0400, Ari J?rm?l? <jarmala(a)2pcuf2.3fi3.invalid> wrote: > >> Trying to update Firefox with MandrivaUpdate and it wants to remove >> avidemux-2.1.0-0.1.20060plf.i586. But I don't want my avidemux to be >> removed. How to solve this? > > Use the command line ... > # urpmi mozilla-firefox --allow-nodeps --allow-force > > I find mozilla products often have dependencies on specific > versions of other packages, such a yelp, but work fine with > newer versions, when you override the dependency checks. Not good. After forcing firefox: $ avidemux2 Ice\ age.avi avidemux2: error while loading shared libraries: libmozjs.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Eh? Rgs, Ari J?rm?l?
From: David W. Hodgins on 12 Sep 2006 12:03 On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:29:05 -0400, Ari J?rm?l? <jarmala(a)2pcuf2.3fi3.invalid> wrote: > Not good. After forcing firefox: > > $ avidemux2 Ice\ age.avi > avidemux2: error while loading shared libraries: > libmozjs.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Try running ldconfig. $ urpmf libmozjs.so libmozilla-firefox1.5.0.6:/usr/lib/mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.6/libmozjs.so mozilla-thunderbird:/usr/lib/mozilla-thunderbird-1.5.0.5/libmozjs.so nvu:/usr/lib/nvu-1.0/libmozjs.so I'm running 2007 beta3, so you paths may be different. You may need to symlink /usr/lib/libmozjs.so to the firefox version, or add an entry to /etc/ld.so.conf.d, to include the firefox directory in the list processed by ldconfig. Regards, Dave Hodgins -- Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email. (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: Jon Solberg on 12 Sep 2006 16:07
Ari J?rm?l? said the following on 2006-09-12 17:29: > Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:41:49 -0400, David W. Hodgins kirjoitti: > >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:17:01 -0400, Ari J?rm?l? <jarmala(a)2pcuf2.3fi3.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Trying to update Firefox with MandrivaUpdate and it wants to remove >>> avidemux-2.1.0-0.1.20060plf.i586. But I don't want my avidemux to be >>> removed. How to solve this? >> Use the command line ... >> # urpmi mozilla-firefox --allow-nodeps --allow-force >> >> I find mozilla products often have dependencies on specific >> versions of other packages, such a yelp, but work fine with >> newer versions, when you override the dependency checks. > > Not good. After forcing firefox: > > $ avidemux2 Ice\ age.avi > avidemux2: error while loading shared libraries: > libmozjs.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory > > Eh? If you start to force installations with urpmi, you'll sooner or later run into problems. So if you want to be on the safe side, simply don't use the options mentioned in the previous post. It's (according to my experience) much better to rebuilt the package yourself, preferably from a srpm. -- Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address). |