Funkiness with mozilla & beta 2

[Net Llama!]

On 07/05/03 10:13, Joe Klemmer wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 12:59, Net Llama! wrote:
> 
>> > mozilla-1.2.1-26
>> > 
>> > The stock mozilla that came with RH9.
>> 
>> Oh.  I ripped that out immediately after installing RH9.  Redhat's 
>> mozilla RPMs are notoriously crappy.  You'd be far better off with the 
>> vanilla 1.3 or 1.4.
> 
> 	I would if it wasn't such a tangled mess.  I really prefer to keep
> things managed by rpm but for mozilla there's -
> 
> $ rpm -qa|grep mozilla
> mozilla-chat-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-nss-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-js-debugger-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-psm-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-dom-inspector-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-nspr-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-devel-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-nss-devel-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-mail-1.2.1-26
> mozilla-nspr-devel-1.2.1-26
> 
> With all the fsck'ing GNOME dependencies it's a real pain in the @$$. 
> Maybe I'll get 1.4 and just run it from my home dir.
> 
> 	I REALLY wish that packages weren't so complicatedly intertwined in
> Linux anymore.  For example, I really like Evolution but to go through
> the agony of trying to upgrade it (and all the things it needs and all
> the things that break when you do) isn't worth it.

No part of Mozilla is dependent on Gnome.  Perhaps Redhat's RPMs are, 
but that's neither here nor there.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

  10:25am  up 6 days, 18:50,  1 user,  load average: 2.44, 1.61, 0.96