Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Support and discussions for the x86/x64 Linux version of Pale Moon and specific Linux distribution questions related to the browser.

Moderator: trava90

Forum rules
If your question is about general use of the browser and not specific to Linux, then please use the General Support board.
bgstack15
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 90
Joined: 2018-01-22, 23:04

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by bgstack15 » 2020-08-06, 13:30

stevepusser wrote:
2020-08-06, 02:30
After all the drama with Sid recently, now a new python2 version mismatch error is preventing the build from even starting--IDK if that's temporary, or due to a scheduled removal of python 2, which will make PM builds impossible for now anyway.
It looks temporary. When I last checked (a day or two ago now, which is a long time for Sid), package python is dependent on python2=2.17.2 but already Sid had python2=2.18.2 and somebody on the Debian side just needs to fix the hard-coded dependency in d/control for package python.

However, I do expect python2 will be dropped eventually. Everybody else seems to drop it like it's hot. And then where will we be?

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-09, 02:57

bgstack15 wrote:
2020-08-06, 13:30
stevepusser wrote:
2020-08-06, 02:30
After all the drama with Sid recently, now a new python2 version mismatch error is preventing the build from even starting--IDK if that's temporary, or due to a scheduled removal of python 2, which will make PM builds impossible for now anyway.
It looks temporary. When I last checked (a day or two ago now, which is a long time for Sid), package python is dependent on python2=2.17.2 but already Sid had python2=2.18.2 and somebody on the Debian side just needs to fix the hard-coded dependency in d/control for package python.

However, I do expect python2 will be dropped eventually. Everybody else seems to drop it like it's hot. And then where will we be?
Either waiting for PM to become python 3 compatible, or just packaging the binaries from PM into debs. It shouldn't be an issue for Stable users for a while, though.

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-09, 06:11

I found one thread on the Debian subreddit that said problems like that are due to changes in Sid with the "python" metapackage that used to point to python2, but said it should still work if it's changed to python2.

I'll try an experimental build tomorrow in the OBS for Sid.

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-10, 02:38

I changed the build-depend to this

Code: Select all

 python2 (>= 2.7.18-2~) | python (>= 2.7),
turned off publishing the packages, and uploaded the new source files. That's allowing the Sid build to start along with all the rest at the same time. I'll turn publishing back on if the builds succeed, but anyone except Sid users can ignore the 28.12.0-2 update if they are starved for bandwidth.

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-10, 05:44

Sid builds succeeded, so I published the new update.

For some reason, the 32-bit builds now fail on Debian Jessie (past end of life) and Ubuntu 16.04 (not dead yet), even though the build should have been exactly the same, since it'll skip over the python2 package since that version's not available, and just install the same "python" metapackage as a build-depend as before, and that was the only change. The successful amd64 builds show that. :?: :crazy:

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27848
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by Moonchild » 2020-08-10, 06:17

The joys of automated build systems!
(And then people wonder why we are apprehensive about using CI where you'd deal with this kind of thing becoming a potential problem for every commit)
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-12, 03:27

The error message in the build log says it's exhausting virtual memory now in the middle of the build, which doesn't seem related at all to the python change, so i bet it's coincidence. I'll try an experimental build that limits it to one thread for those builds also to see if that helps. We dropped the old Jessie-based builds for MX 15/16 Linux when it went EOL recently, so I don't have any test builds on my own machine for that older release.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7852
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-08-12, 04:45

What is your default -jN and what is the number of cores and ram of these OBS slaves?
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-14, 03:33

I'm normally running them at four threads, except for special circumstances (Sid) where it's one thread. The OBS can run at eight threads, but I'm limiting the threads and RAM requested because the ARM builds on the OBS don't seem to have more available. The constraints ask for build machines with 8 GB RAM and 30 GB of space, but I think I'm running into that problem again of a 32-bit process only being able to use 4 GB of memory maximum. Jessie is EOL, so I'm not that concerned with it, but there may still be users on Ubuntu 16.04 for reasons of inertia or something. I'm more concerned that bgstack and I now have the Sid builds working again.

But the old-timey distro users could always use the binaries from Pale Moon, in any case.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7852
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-08-14, 05:24

I see. Well even so.. This deff is a consiquence of non-unified sources plus libevil. Makes perfect sense.

Only thing I can say is this while being the status quo for a good long while WILL eventually be resolved cause next after we get all of unified sources dealt with we will start distangling libxul and splitting the consituant libs out.

Regardless, this is a needed to get from here to there and if 32bit linux is a mid-term temporary sacrifice then so be it.
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-08-15, 04:22

So far, 32-bit on gcc versions 6 through nine seem OK--but fail on Jessie's 4.9 and Xenial's 5.3.

I'll try reverting that build-depend change in the experimental package to see if it was just coincidence.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7852
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-08-15, 08:06

4.9 should have the least trouble as its efficiency compared to later compilers is known.
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-09-05, 06:55

28.13.0 is now available for Debian 9, 10, and 64-bit 8, since the 32-bit fails as noted above. The same for 32-bit Ubuntu 16.04, but the rest of the supported Ubuntu releases are done. Debian testing and unstable are still building.

This release also installs the XFCE helper file so PM shows up as a choice in XFCE's preferred app settings.

I also noticed that the latest Bleachbit 4.1.0 release added support for cleaning various Pale Moon caches, cookies, and temp files. I built and added it to the MX Linux repos, since Debian and Ubuntu repos are still at 3.9.0, but other users can get and install packages directly from the Bleachbit home page.

Harkonnen
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 31
Joined: 2014-11-04, 12:27
Location: Kiev, Ukraine

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by Harkonnen » 2020-09-05, 07:40

Steven, 28.13 installed from your repo disables all non-palemoon native extensions. The one from a tar.xz from downloads page doesnt. Did you enabled some build time configure parameter for this? If yes, why? And can we get a version without this?

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 27848
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Tranås, SE
Contact:

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by Moonchild » 2020-09-05, 09:25

I think he missed the memo about build instruction changes that was posted. Disabling the extensions was not intentional; they just got disabled due to an oversight in Steven's builds.
I've sent him a message; he'll have to make new builds.
"There will be times when the position you advocate, no matter how well framed and supported, will not be accepted by the public simply because you are who you are." -- Merrill Rose
Image

User avatar
stevepusser
Project Contributor
Project Contributor
Posts: 665
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by stevepusser » 2020-09-06, 03:46

Can I get these memos ahead of time in a PM?

User avatar
adesh
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1197
Joined: 2017-06-06, 07:38

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by adesh » 2020-09-06, 05:56

It was posted here on the forum: ATTENTION PACKAGE BUILDERS
A link was given to the build instructions to check but the specific change to the build instructions was not advertised. I think it is customary to check the latest build instructions before doing a release though.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7852
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-09-06, 08:22

I posted that 2 weeks ago well ahead of this release with big captial letters in the Pale Moon specific developer board after I updated all the build instructions which I did after I commited the patches for the change.

I really don't see why literally no one saw it. Though I was pretty sure massive complacency had settled in at the time hince the post. Maybe next time everyone will be more mindful either to attention getters like that one or the actual development progress.

This is your responsibility as package builders. I didn't PM Travis or otherwise personally inform him of the change and he was on the ball and he barely even physically exists these days. Least in our reality.. He may simply be phasing in and out of existance or merely hopping around the multiverse. I dunno.
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

bgstack15
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 90
Joined: 2018-01-22, 23:04

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by bgstack15 » 2020-09-06, 11:53

stevepusser wrote:
2020-09-06, 03:46
Can I get these memos ahead of time in a PM?
But it was announced! It's my fault for making the announcement only about the updating components. My bad!

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 7852
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Space, maybe..

Re: Ubuntu 16.04, 16.10, 17.04, 18.04 Debian 8, 9 Pale Moon repositories

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-09-06, 16:53

Clarify.
Image
- Mars will never be free until the sands run red with Earther blood! -

Image

Post Reply