Hi Troy,

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Troy Dawson wrote:

> OK, we found and fixed the problem.
> 
> RedHat doesn't have enough mozilla stuff in x86_64 to actually run mozilla in
> 32 bit mode.  But we wanted out users to be able to run mozilla (and firefox)
> in 32 bit mode on their x86_64, so that their plugins would work.

Just in case you wonder whether there's any point in doing this:

1) Many of our servers now have "Lights Out Management" capabilities,
   which we're using extensively. Many of them require a browser and
   a java plugin. And we restrict access to the subnet to which the 
   service processors are connected to a few machines only. And those
   today are running 64-bit operating systems. All of them.

2) We're getting serious about offering 64-bit desktops to our users.
   That's a natural move, given the fact that almost all of our
   farm nodes are running 64-bit SL now, and desktops are being used
   for development and test of jobs to run on the worker nodes.

> Well, with out new scripts, we download and verify, that what we have in our
> errata, matches what RedHat has in their errata.

Perfectly reasonable. But of course it bites you (us) where SL has 
improved upon the upstream product.

Thanks for doing this,
	Stephan

> But, since RedHat doesn't have all the i386 mozilla files, we didn't get them
> put in.
> 
> Now the sticky bit, which is why I missed this, was that I know for S.L.
> 3.0.x, I specifically checked for the i386 rpm's in the x86_64.  So in my
> mind, I checked for this problem.  But I really hadn't checked both places.
> 
> Anyway, it's currently fixed, and we're figuring out a way to modify our
> script so that it has another exception for mozilla and firefox.
> 
> Thanks for reporting this, and thanks for being patient.
> 
> Troy
> 
> Troy Dawson wrote:
> > That's strange, because yes, this was something I checked, and on both SL42
> > and SL41.  But as I look, I had the x86_64 versions installed.
> > Can you send the output of
> > 
> >   rpm -qa | grep mozilla
> > 
> > and if there isn't any arch's on the end of the rpm's send a
> > 
> >   yum list mozilla\*
> > 
> > That way we can setup a test problem and hopefully be able to fix it easier.
> > 
> > Troy
> > 
> > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Overnight Yum errata:-
> > > > Error: Missing Dependency: mozilla-nspr = 37:1.7.12-1.4.2 is needed by
> > > > package mozilla
> > > > Error: Missing Dependency: mozilla-nss = 37:1.7.12-1.4.2 is needed by
> > > > package mozilla
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure whether this is helpful, but I can report that I just
> > > updated a SL4.2 i386-architecture system successfully. (with yum).
> > >
> > > It wanted to update firefox (1 package) and mozilla (6 packages,
> > > including the two mentioned above), and the update completed normally.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Note: Although it's the x86_64 distro I have the i386 mozilla packages.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So it's 4.1 versus 4.2, and x86_64 versus i386.
> > >
> > > Hope this is vaguely useful, anyhow.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

 ----------------------------------------------------
| Stephan Wiesand  |                                |
|                  |                                |
| DESY     - DV -  | phone  +49 33762 7 7370        |
| Platanenallee 6  | fax    +49 33762 7 7216        |
| 15738 Zeuthen    |                                |
| Germany          |                                |
 ----------------------------------------------------