Package Details: palemoon 1:33.4.1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/palemoon.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: palemoon
Description: Open source web browser based on Firefox focusing on efficiency.
Upstream URL: https://www.palemoon.org/
Keywords: browser goanna web
Licenses: MPL-2.0
Submitter: artiom
Maintainer: WorMzy
Last Packager: WorMzy
Votes: 141
Popularity: 0.128622
First Submitted: 2014-06-05 10:54 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-05 20:54 (UTC)

Pinned Comments

WorMzy commented on 2021-03-02 16:19 (UTC) (edited on 2022-08-03 21:12 (UTC) by WorMzy)

The following key is used to sign release commits:

40481E7B8FCF9CEC

Import it into your keyring however you want.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GnuPG#Import_a_public_key

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .. 38 Next › Last »

sekret commented on 2017-11-12 20:53 (UTC)

I had to abort the build, my system got unstable... Old machine ;-) But here's an info from the "old" gcc5, which causes palemoon to not build $ grep _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/5.5.0/include/c++/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/c++config.h /* #undef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH */ #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH_TR1 1 So this wasn't the culprit on my machine.

sekret commented on 2017-11-12 12:44 (UTC)

My old build of gcc5 was finished 31.10.2017 18:00. The rebuild runs right now, takes quite a while, because I have an old CPU $ grep "model name" /proc/cpuinfo model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5870 @ 2.00GHz model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T5870 @ 2.00GHz

WorMzy commented on 2017-11-12 12:38 (UTC)

Recompiling gcc5 worked for me. \o/ I am now thoroughly confused. There was a rebuild of glibc on the 29th of October, which may have pulled in this commit [1], which sounds like it would have fixed the problem me and wolf were encountering. It seems that there are three different builds of gcc5, all slightly different depending on the environment they were built in. Wolf and me had one variant, which led to the __builtin build failures, sekret had one which led to the Unified_cpp_dom_canvas0.o build failure, and runical and fabertawe had one which led to a successful build. I strongly suspect glibc was responsible for the group one failures, I'm not sure about group two, and I'm going to assume group three builds were done after groups one and two. Comparing dates on our respective gcc5 packages may confirm this, but so long as the problem is resolved, I'm not going to expend too much effort investigating it. [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=386e1c26ac473d6863133ab9cbe3bbda16c15816

fabertawe commented on 2017-11-12 11:29 (UTC)

I don't build in a clean chroot! CPU is an Intel i7 4790k, 'makepkg.conf' reads... CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" CFLAGS="-march=native -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector-strong -fno-plt" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,--sort-common,--as-needed,-z,relro,-z,now" 'c++config.h' (untouched by me) shows... #define _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH 1

sekret commented on 2017-11-12 11:07 (UTC)

Me too, I recently switched my HD into another laptop, maybe it makes a difference if I build gcc with this CPU? I don't use custom build flags, so I can't imagine that's the reason, but well, I'll try and report back.

WorMzy commented on 2017-11-12 11:04 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting. My clean chroot build also fails with gcc5.5, with the same errors as Wolf. It'd be interesting to see if we could identify what causes this build failure. Runical amd fabertawe, I'm guessing you don't modify c++config.h, so the bug report I suspected is probably a red herring (although that edit results in a successful build for me). Just as a sanity check, could you all check your gcc5 package's /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/5.5.0/include/c++/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/c++config.h and see whether _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_MATH is defined (check around line #1346). Also, if you don't mind sharing what sort of CPU you use, and whether you use any custom C{,XX,PP}FLAGS, that might help. Either leave a comment here, ping me on irc (WorMzy@freenode), or drop me an email. Any help would be appreciated. @sekret: on closer inspection, your build failure is different to the ones me and wolf are (were?) experiencing. It's interesting to see three different outcomes from clean-chroot builds! I'm going to try rebuilding gcc5.5 again and see if palemoon builds with the new package.

sekret commented on 2017-11-12 09:17 (UTC)

I build in a clean chroot too and palemoon failed to build with gcc5 from the AUR.

runical commented on 2017-11-12 09:06 (UTC)

@fabertawe: I think this is his specific issue. GCC5 built just fine for me and the same goes for palemoon. I do build in a clean chroot though, so that removes a lot of the issues anyway.

fabertawe commented on 2017-11-11 13:19 (UTC)

I'm confused... Pale Moon builds for me with gcc5 5.5.0-2 from the AUR. Is it failing for everyone else or is wolf's a specific issue?

wolf commented on 2017-11-11 11:37 (UTC)

Can confirm 5.4 from https://archive.archlinux.org/packages/g/gcc5/ works just fine, maybe you could add info about this (5.5 not working) into that pinned comment :)

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .. 38 Next › Last »