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.

Moderators: trava90, satrow

User avatar
bernardm
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2019-07-31, 12:53

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

Unread post by bernardm » 2019-07-31, 12:59

I used this link
https://download.opensuse.org/repositor ... _amd64.deb
to dowload this morning to install on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, but on opening the DEB file with GDEBI, installation failed because the DEB requires libc6>=2.29
This is not available on Ubuntu until 19.04

User avatar
martywd
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2014-04-16, 14:36
Location: TX

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

Unread post by martywd » 2019-07-31, 14:52

bernardm wrote:
2019-07-31, 12:59
I used this link
https://download.opensuse.org/repositor ... _amd64.deb
to dowload this morning to install on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, but on opening the DEB file with GDEBI, installation failed because the DEB requires libc6>=2.29
This is not available on Ubuntu until 19.04
I just downloaded the package you linked and ran 'dpkg -I' (Capital 'I', _not_ lowercase 'l'!) command and got this output:

Code: Select all

$ dpkg -I palemoon_28.6.1+repack-1_amd64.deb 
 new Debian package, version 2.0.
 size 41580824 bytes: control archive=2872 bytes.
    1539 bytes,    23 lines      control              
    4075 bytes,    56 lines      md5sums              
     324 bytes,    11 lines   *  postinst             #!/bin/sh
     211 bytes,     8 lines   *  prerm                #!/bin/sh
 Package: palemoon
 Version: 28.6.1+repack-1
 Architecture: amd64
 Bugs: mailto: <maintainer@mepiscommunity.org>
 Maintainer: Steven Pusser <stevep@mxlinux.org>
 Installed-Size: 114636
 Depends: libasound2 (>= 1.0.16), libc6 (>= 2.27), libcairo2 (>= 1.2.4), libdbus-1-3 (>= 1.9.14), libdbus-glib-1-2 (>= 0.78), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.12), libfreetype6 (>= 2.2.1), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.0), libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 (>= 2.22.0), libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.30.0), libgtk2.0-0 (>= 2.24.0), libpango-1.0-0 (>= 1.14.0), libstdc++6 (>= 5.2), libx11-6, libx11-xcb1, libxcb-shm0, libxcb1, libxext6, libxrender1, libxt6, libavcodec54 | libavcodec-extra54 | libavcodec55 | libavcodec-extra55 | libavcodec56 | libavcodec-extra56 | libavcodec57 | libavcodec-extra57 | libavcodec58 | libavcodec-extra58 | libavcodec-ffmpeg56 | libavcodec-ffmpeg-extra56
 Conflicts: palemoon-nonsse2
 Replaces: palemoon-nonsse2
 Provides: gnome-www-browser, www-browser, x-www-browser
 Section: web
 Priority: optional
 Homepage: http://www.palemoon.org/
 Description: Firefox-based, efficient and easy to use web browser
  Pale Moon offers selected features and optimizations to maximize
  the browser's speed, stability and user experience, while maintaining
  compatibility with the thousands of Firefox extensions you have come
  to love and rely on.
  .
  Pale Moon requires a processor that supports the SSE2 instruction set.
  Run "/proc/cpuinfo" in a terminal, and look for sse2 in the flags to ensure
  that your processor supports it.
 Original-Maintainer: Marian Kadanka <marian.kadanka@openmailbox.org>
libc6 (>= 2.27) <== From the out put of the text above the dependency of that package for libc6 is equal to or greater than 2.27, and not as you typed 'libc6>=2.29'.

Hmmmmmm? I think you should try again.


.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-08-02, 19:33

My best guess is that you accidentally downloaded the deb for a higher version of Ubuntu, which is easy to do with the tricky way the OBS makes the list. Try again and make sure you're getting the right version for 18.04.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-08-02, 19:38

First Debian Unstable, and now Debian Testing builds are failing as they updated to the latest dh-strip-nondeterminism:

Code: Select all

dh_strip_nondeterminism: debian/palemoon/usr/lib/palemoon/browser/extensions/{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}.xpi: Reading ZIP archive failed: format error: bad signature: 0x49605b30 at offset 3080 in file debian/palemoon/usr/lib/palemoon/browser/extensions/{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}.xpi 
I can add an override so that file is ignored, but I wonder if it does indeed have a bad signature, and fixing that would be the better way to handle it. The other possibility would be a bug in dh-strip-nondeterminism.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-08-03, 00:49

I pushed the update with the override through to fix the builds on Debian Sid and Testing. If you aren't running those, and have very limited bandwidth, you're safe in holding off the update for now.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-08-27, 00:54

And now Debian Sid's transition to gcc-9 as the default gcc has broken the builds there, probably soon to be followed by Debian testing (Bullseye). I'm pretty sure the last successful builds with gcc-8 remain available in the repos, however, and since gcc-8 remains available in those two distreleases, I have the code to add to the build files to recognize what platform they are building on and force the build to use gcc-8 on Bullseye, Sid, and soon Ubuntu 19.10.

If those last successful builds aren't installable, let me know and I'll push the revision into it now.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-08-30, 23:54

28.7.0 now in the repos. The Debian testing and Sid builds were tougher to do, since they appear to have broken the lsb-release technique I relied on to identify those versions. Eventually, I just made a separate package for those, and added a dummy metapackage called "palemoon-mp" so the OBS will generate instructions for the repo for that. If you already have the repo added for Sid or Bullseye, I think you don't have to do anything, though.

BTW, how long has Pale Moon had that "about:mozilla" type of Easter Egg? I just found it...

ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2047
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

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

Unread post by ron_1 » 2019-08-31, 00:46

stevepusser wrote:
BTW, how long has Pale Moon had that "about:mozilla" type of Easter Egg? I just found it...
At least a couple of years, if not longer.

User avatar
moonbat
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 756
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Location: Australia

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

Unread post by moonbat » 2019-08-31, 02:36

Just ran the update on Mint 19.2 Xfce, from the PPA. Closed PM before running it, now on reopening it it is still at 28.6.1 and apt update says that all my packages are up to date :cry:
How do I get it to update again, should I remove and reinstall?
Edit - removed and reinstalled and it's updated now.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Linux Mint 19.2 Xfce x64 on HP i5 laptop with 4 GB RAM, always latest versions of PM & Basilisk unless specified.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-09-01, 20:03

moonbat wrote:
2019-08-31, 02:36
Just ran the update on Mint 19.2 Xfce, from the PPA. Closed PM before running it, now on reopening it it is still at 28.6.1 and apt update says that all my packages are up to date :cry:
How do I get it to update again, should I remove and reinstall?
Edit - removed and reinstalled and it's updated now.
It should have upgraded automatically, but I'm glad to see you worked around the issue. Just to be accurate, my repo isn't a PPA, but an OBS repo. A PPA would be a lot simpler for Ubuntu and MInt users to add, but it wouldn't build Debian packages at all.

User avatar
martywd
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2014-04-16, 14:36
Location: TX

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

Unread post by martywd » 2019-09-01, 21:00

stevepusser wrote: ... Just to be accurate, my repo isn't a PPA, but an OBS repo. A PPA would be a lot simpler for Ubuntu and MInt users to add, but it wouldn't build Debian packages at all.
I've always wondered why you use OBS instead of a PPA. Of course, for the Debian builds! I guess I should have figured that? Anyway...

@stevepusser, thanks for all you efforts here.

.
Last edited by martywd on 2019-09-01, 21:48, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
martywd
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 121
Joined: 2014-04-16, 14:36
Location: TX

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

Unread post by martywd » 2019-09-01, 21:02

stevepusser wrote: ... Just to be accurate, my repo isn't a PPA, but an OBS repo. A PPA would be a lot simpler for Ubuntu and MInt users to add, but it wouldn't build Debian packages at all.
I've always wondered why you use OBS instead of a PPA. Of course, for the Debian builds! I guess I should have figured that? Anyway...

@stevepusser, thanks for all you efforts here.



My OS: LM 19.2 MATE 64-bit
.
Last edited by martywd on 2019-09-01, 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-09-01, 21:16

martywd wrote:
2019-09-01, 21:02
stevepusser wrote: ... Just to be accurate, my repo isn't a PPA, but an OBS repo. A PPA would be a lot simpler for Ubuntu and MInt users to add, but it wouldn't build Debian packages at all.
I've always wondered why you use OBS instead of a PPA. Of course, for the Debian builds! I guess I should have figured that? Anyway...

@stevepusser, thanks for all you efforts here.



My OS: LM 19.2 MATE 64-bit
.
An OBS repo is also easier to get set up than a PPA, especially if you aren't using Ubuntu. :)

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-10-21, 23:23

Added a repo for Ubuntu 19.10. Builds for Eoan failed at first, until Mr. Tobin pointed out that they required a patch to build with its bleeding edge libc6 2.30, which is even newer that Debian Sid's.

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-10-29, 17:58

Uploading 28.7.2 PM sources to the OBS now. This updated version should build on gcc-4.9 to gcc-9, and also on Ubuntu's libc6 (GLIBC) 2.30 without any patching now, so am crossing my fingers.

If Ubuntu 19.10 and Debian upstream gcc-9 builds do turn out buggy, let me know, and I'll force them to build with gcc-7, which is still available for those versions.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6203
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

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

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-10-29, 18:04

Not GCC 6. Just everything else from 4.9 to 9.x. Well, GCC6 should build but it will not be performant and/or stable.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-10-29, 20:39

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2019-10-29, 18:04
Not GCC 6. Just everything else from 4.9 to 9.x. Well, GCC6 should build but it will not be performant and/or stable.
Well, that's quite odd--the MX 17/18 and Stretch versions have been built with gcc-6 6.3 for years now, and we've never had any complaints about stability for those! Maybe Debian has patched it enough to make it stable...

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Off-Topic Sheriff
Off-Topic Sheriff
Posts: 6203
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Sector 001

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

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2019-10-29, 22:11

Not impossible but still not recommended.
Image
- Old and insecure for legitimate and reasonable purposes. -
http://binaryoutcast.com/ | http://thereisonlyxul.org/ | Freenode #binaryoutcast

User avatar
stevepusser
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 531
Joined: 2015-08-01, 18:33
Location: California

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

Unread post by stevepusser » 2019-10-29, 23:25

I think we're stuck with it for Stretch, since Debian doesn't offer any other gcc versions for Stretch. I do have gcc-7 and gcc-8 built for the same platform in the MX experimental repo for some programs that require it, such as Telegram-desktop and irdium-browser, but the way I had to bootstrap those builds make it impossible to have the OBS build the same for Stretch, as far as I know.

If they start blowing up for some reason all of a sudden, then I'll have to try and find a solution. (crosses fingers)

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 24876
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

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

Unread post by Moonchild » 2019-10-29, 23:31

The main problem with GCC 6.* has been that it would (internally) optimize much too aggressively resulting in unstable binaries. Depending on what Debian has done for their distro's version of it, that bullet might be dodged for the time being -- and if it does become a problem, there's always the option to try and restore stability by not optimizing the build, if OBS can't deal with having to set up an alternate toolchain.
"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
Image

Post Reply