[SOLVED] Xulrunner: to install or not to instal

TKH · 09-06-2012, 02:33 AM

I think my question is clear enough.

Well, let me get this straight.
I'm about to install a Mozilla Firefox browser on my LFS.
I saw that installing the Xulrunner is recommended by the BLFS developers (even though they put it in optional list).
However, I see that installing Xulrunner takes a lot more space than if I install the browser alone.
Furthermore, I see that there is not much use of this package.

So I'm asking, should I install Xulrunner?

druuna · 09-06-2012, 03:22 AM

If Firefox is the only "Mozilla" product you are going to install I wouldn't install xulrunner. If you are going to install, for example, IcedTea-Web you do need to install xulrunner.

Do have a look at the User Notes, which might be an alternative.

TKH · 09-06-2012, 04:09 AM

Okay... I see quite many Mozilla products here in BLFS, but only Firefox and IceTea supports it.
What's wrong with it?

druuna · 09-06-2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TKH

Okay... I see quite many Mozilla products here in BLFS, but only Firefox and IceTea supports it.
What's wrong with it?

What is wrong with what?

This from the BLFS book:

Quote:

There are two major methods for building Firefox. In the standard case, the entire suite of libraries is built and installed. In the other, most of the system is built using the procedures found in Xulrunner-14.0.1. This is advantageous if you are planning to build other related packages such as IcedTea-Web-1.2.

This doesn't say that all the package from the Mozilla stable (have to) use xulrunner.

Except for firefox on occasion I don't use any other package from the Mozilla stable, so I cannot tell you if Thunderbird (to name just one) would benefit from an installed xulrunner.

ReaperX7 · 09-06-2012, 10:11 PM

Xulrunner is also used to build gecko-mediaplayer plugins for FireFox and SeaMonkey.

TKH · 09-08-2012, 06:02 AM

Well, I guess that would come in handy.
Thanks for the tip