Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Mozilla 1.4 Released (MozillaZine)
MozillaZine
reports on the release of version 1.4 of the Mozilla web browser.
"This release offers several
enhancements over Mozilla 1.3.1, including NTLM authentication support
(Windows only), bookmarks improvements, click-and-drag image and table
resizing in Composer, smooth scrolling (disabled by default), junk mail
improvements and proxy auto-config failover."
(Log in to post comments)
Mozilla 1.4 Released (MozillaZine) Posted Jul 1, 2003 4:48 UTC (Tue) by sud_crow (guest, #12536) [Link] Finally! after the 3 RC!!! I cant belive it... im gonna get it riiiiiiiight now. cheers!
Is everyone using glibc >= 2.2.4 ? Posted Jul 1, 2003 14:26 UTC (Tue) by mmarkov (guest, #4978) [Link] Moz 1.4 (for Linux, of course) refuses to run here,complaining that my glibc is < 2.2.4. Which is true, I have glibc 2.2.3, but I wonder, am I so much behind times? What advanced features of the new C libraries does Mozilla use? :) BTW, one of the RCs had the same issue, but it had a
Is everyone using glibc >= 2.2.4 ? Posted Jul 1, 2003 14:55 UTC (Tue) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] The new mozilla for Linux is compiled with GCC 3.2. I think that the preconditionfor that GCC is glibc >= 2.2.4. The new Mozilla also requires a Java update (I used Sun's 1.4.2) for the same reason. You could recompile it with the older GCC/glibc. There is probably nothing in the code that prevents it from running (rc2 didn't have a problem with glibc or java AFAIK)
Is everyone using glibc >= 2.2.4 ? Posted Jul 1, 2003 17:09 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] GCC 3.2 *does* work with glibc < 2.2.4, but you have to configure GCC with --disable-__cxa_atexit; C++ code built with such a GCC is not ABI-compatible with the default --enable-__cxa_atexit case (and has a few subtle and unfixable extra breakages).Very probably all the Mozilla binary packages were built with a GCC configured with --enable-__cxa_atexit.
Is everyone using glibc >= 2.2.4 ? Posted Jul 2, 2003 2:13 UTC (Wed) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] A part of me knew that...
Is everyone using glibc >= 2.2.4 ? Posted Jul 1, 2003 15:57 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] Poking around my systems, it looks like glibc >= 2.2.4 has been true for some time. Maybe time to upgrade.Red Hat 6.2 glibc 2.1.3 Mandrake 8.2 glibc 2.2.4 Red Hat 7.3 glibc 2.2.5 Mandrake 9.1 glibc 2.3.1 Red Hat 9 glibc 2.3.2
|
|
||||||||||||