| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bigun
Advocate
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 2196
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: Gnome, Firefox.... and Firefox-bin |
 |
|
Everytime I emerge gnome.... gnome insists on yelp.... and yelp installs firefox.... that wouldn't be an issue except I have firefox-bin installed... and really don't need the un-binary package. Any suggestions on how to keep gnome in and keep out firefox?
(I've tried gnome-light with the same results)
_________________
"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Earthwings
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 7753
Location: Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigun
Advocate
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 2196
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you well know the whole situation between firefox, flash, and AMD-64... we *need* the binary package. That thread only talks the guy out of using the binary package.
_________________
"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earthwings
Bodhisattva
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 7753
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I don't know much about amd64. Do you just want to get rid of one firefox instance or do they conflict with each other?
_________________
KDE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96140
Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I run firefox, firefox-bin, and Gnome together on my (stable) amd64 system. Sometimes it's a pain to make sure the "right" version of firefox is used by default; in my case, I use firefox-bin with netscape-flash.
Note, though, that there are plenty of threads on using 64-bit compiled firefox with nspluginwrapper (in ~amd64) to get working 32-bit plugins, such as Flash (some people have also even got mplayer-bin working for embedded videos), with your 64-bit browser.
Gnome has a few moments where it gets confused if you double click on an html file (or another MIME type that it passes off to the webbrowser), so to make sure only firefox-bin is used, I just right click and hit "Open with", then setup /usr/bin/firefox-bin to always be used. Also, if you use quick launch shortcuts on your Gnome panel, just make sure that the Firefox icon points to /usr/bin/firefox-bin.
As you can see, it's possible to use firefox-bin for everything, while only keeping the compiled version around for programs that build against it. Whenever Yelp runs, it'll use the 64-bit version, but just uncheck that version's "Check to see if it is the default browser" box in Preferences-->General to make sure it doesn't set itself as the default.
Or, if you're willing to put in a little experimentation, it's easily possible to run with just the compiled version and nspluginwrapper for your 32-bit needs. I just haven't bothered to try that yet.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahubu
Guru
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since there is a developer in this thread, and my question concerns both gnome and firefox(-bin), I guess this is on-topic.
Is there a significant difference in memory-usage between firefox and firefox-bin? My thought would be yes: firefox-bin is statically linked, so it needs to load it's own libraries into memory, and the home-built firefox uses the gnome-libraries (or does it not?). Right or wrong?  I see my fully equiped firefox-bin using 325mb virtual memory of which is 192mb writable memory, which is still by far the most memory hungry application. But of course, that is with 13 tabs open (and quite a few plugins). But I never thought it could become so incredibly heavy.
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak. -Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96140
Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ahubu wrote: | Since there is a developer in this thread, and my question concerns both gnome and firefox(-bin), I guess this is on-topic.
Is there a significant difference in memory-usage between firefox and firefox-bin? My thought would be yes: firefox-bin is statically linked, so it needs to load it's own libraries into memory, and the home-built firefox uses the gnome-libraries (or does it not?). Right or wrong? I see my fully equiped firefox-bin using 325mb virtual memory of which is 192mb writable memory, which is still by far the most memory hungry application. But of course, that is with 13 tabs open (and quite a few plugins). But I never thought it could become so incredibly heavy. |
First, regarding reported memory usage: Linux reports free and used memory much different than Windows does. If you search the web or these forums, you'll see any number of topics on this. Just because top or some other monitor may show firefox using 60MB memory doesn't mean it actually is -- Linux just likes to use any and all available RAM; it's more efficient that way. Soon as you launch several more apps that need memory, the 60MB (apparent) that was allocated to firefox is instantly allocated elsewhere. So don't just blindly accept what your monitors tell you without a real understanding of what's going on.
Second, regarding libraries: firefox-bin and firefox use much the same libraries; it's just that in the case of the former they're 32-bit. Try running:
| Code: | | $ ldd /opt/firefox/firefox-bin |
to see all the libraries firefox-bin is linked to. You can get similar results by hunting down the 64-bit firefox executable and running ldd against it. Same names -- pango (font rendering), cairo (eyecandy), libpng, the various gtk and X libraries. Note that in the 32-bit version, you'll see a lot of extra links to emul-linux-x86-* libraries. There really isn't all that much difference in memory usage or speed that I've been able to see, regardless of extra 32-bit libraries. Any modern processor (such as my Athlon X2 4600+) will run them with enough speed that you probably can't tell the difference.
Unless your system is really starving for memory, you shouldn't notice much in the way of slowdown, either. I've seen a few reports that say 64-bit firefox starts a little quicker (in hundreds of a second), and some that say 32-bit loads quicker. For myself, timing a "cold start" firefox-bin just after booting, it takes a few extra seconds to load. Same with 64-bit firefox. But neither of them occupy all that much memory once they've been loaded into memory a few times. They each generally hover around 35M of 4GB available memory.
As I said earlier, unless you're starving for memory, and/or you notice noticeable sluggishness when multitasking or browsing, I wouldn't worry about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahubu
Guru
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, Nightmorph, thank you for your elaborate reply.
| ahubu wrote: |
Is there a significant difference in memory-usage between firefox and firefox-bin? I see my fully equiped firefox-bin using 325mb virtual memory of which is 192mb writable memory, which is still by far the most memory hungry application. |
| nightmorph wrote: |
First, regarding reported memory usage: Linux reports free and used memory much different than Windows does. If you search the web or these forums, you'll see any number of topics on this. Just because top or some other monitor may show firefox using 60MB memory doesn't mean it actually is -- Linux just likes to use any and all available RAM; it's more efficient that way. Soon as you launch several more apps that need memory, the 60MB (apparent) that was allocated to firefox is instantly allocated elsewhere. So don't just blindly accept what your monitors tell you without a real understanding of what's going on.
|
Fortunately I was already aware of the fact that linux uses memory differently, and it does it well by filling up as much as possible just to make sure valuable RAM is not wasted by "just sitting there". I think I read all the topics you refer to .However, I was concerned by the fact that firefox starts with a relative small footprint (35mb-ish) and after a few hours of intensive browsing raises to over 200mb on its own (not counting shared memory). That is ok for me if I have all those tabs open, but I didn't. So I was wondering why.
| nightmorph wrote: |
Second, regarding libraries: firefox-bin and firefox use much the same libraries; it's just that in the case of the former they're 32-bit. Try running:
| Code: | | $ ldd /opt/firefox/firefox-bin |
to see all the libraries firefox-bin is linked to. You can get similar results by hunting down the 64-bit firefox executable and running ldd against it. Same names -- pango (font rendering), cairo (eyecandy), libpng, the various gtk and X libraries. Note that in the 32-bit version, you'll see a lot of extra links to emul-linux-x86-* libraries. There really isn't all that much difference in memory usage or speed that I've been able to see, regardless of extra 32-bit libraries. Any modern processor (such as my Athlon X2 4600+) will run them with enough speed that you probably can't tell the difference.
|
Yes I'm sorry I'm trespassing in this thread because I use a 32bit system  I stumbled onto it, and I felt I had to ask what I had been wanting to ask for some time. Forgive me. I was under the impression that the bin-version of firefox can shipped with it's own pango, gtk, etc, and it wouldn't use the one already on the system, but if I understand correctly now, I was wrong.
| nightmorph wrote: |
Unless your system is really starving for memory, you shouldn't notice much in the way of slowdown, either. I've seen a few reports that say 64-bit firefox starts a little quicker (in hundreds of a second), and some that say 32-bit loads quicker. For myself, timing a "cold start" firefox-bin just after booting, it takes a few extra seconds to load. Same with 64-bit firefox. But neither of them occupy all that much memory once they've been loaded into memory a few times. They each generally hover around 35M of 4GB available memory.
As I said earlier, unless you're starving for memory, and/or you notice noticeable sluggishness when multitasking or browsing, I wouldn't worry about it. |
In the meanwhile I have been on irc and someone (joe from beagle) explained me that the new firefox 2.0 has a new feature, that lets you reopen closed tabs. (Ctrl-Shift-t). Nifty feature, but therefore all tabs (and 5 or so pages of history per tab) are kept into memory, preventing the system from freeing up that memory on a tab closure (even after some time). Now I don't know what happens when you're _really_ short on memory, but I trust firefox will (or linux will do it for firefox) release the closed-tabs-in-the-background.
I was only concerned because I saw the tabs close and the memory occupied still after a while. And 200mb on 1gb of RAM is still a lot, not everybody has 4gb you know. Either way, my opinion is that we should always be concerned about excessive memory usage: why sloppily program something to use 200mb when it can suffice with 50. But that's not the case here, and I'm glad.
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak. -Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96140
Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there is actually a known bug about memory usage in Firefox. I forget what the exact number is, but if you have a lot of tabs open, Firefox will develop a memory leak over time; only way I know of to fix it is to close it. I can't recall the bug number on mozilla.org, though.
Regarding builtin libraries, well, the precompiled version does ship with some of its own libraries. That being said, it still depends on things like gtk already being installed on your system before it can run. Here's a section from the binary 1.5.0.8 ebuild on the runtime dependencies:
| Code: | RDEPEND="|| ( ( x11-libs/libXrender
x11-libs/libXt
x11-libs/libXmu
)
virtual/x11
)
x86? (
>=sys-libs/lib-compat-1.0-r2
>=x11-libs/gtk+-2.2
=virtual/libstdc++-3.3
)
amd64? (
>=app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-1.0
>=app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-gtklibs-1.0
app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat
)
>=www-client/mozilla-launcher-1.41
virtual/libc" |
Pretty much the same runtime requirements regardless of amd64 or x86. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saptech
n00b
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 24
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I just installed gentoo64 ver. Should I install firefox-bin only or best to install both versions?
Just want to clarify it.
Thnx.
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ GHz (Socket AM2) processor
Integrated VIA UniChrome Pro IGP
512mb Pny Ram |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IamBorg
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 86
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had been using firefox-bin. However, after updating to Gnome 2.16.1, firefox-bin no long starts.  I was having need of flash which only netscape-flash fullfills and I had taken my 32-bit system off-line so I couldn't just forward a 32-bit web browser. Then I went searching these forums once again, and lo and behold, I ran across this thread and mention of nspluginwrapper. After emergence, (and setup of netscape-flash), bing-bada-boom, it worked great. 
What I tend to try to do is to run as much as native 64-bits as possible. That is my take.
For those curious,
| Code: | ~ $ firefox-bin
No running windows found
** ERROR **: First `engine' section must include a `stock' section.
aborting...
/usr/libexec/mozilla-launcher: line 117: 12763 Aborted "$mozbin" "$@"
firefox-bin exited with non-zero status (134)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blurp
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
i had a "similar" problem, except that firefox-bin seg faults at the same mozilla-launcher line.
somehow, after playing with the switches "-safe-mode" and "-browser", firefox-bin just works and I don't know why... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigun
Advocate
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 2196
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I meant to post that nspluginwrapper is a godsend. I am now 100% 64-bit binary with the 32-bit plugins running through the wrapper.
_________________
"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overkll
Veteran
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 1249
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a similar issue with firefox-bin and gnome-2.16.
| Code: | # firefox-bin -browser
/opt/firefox/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error: /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.7: undefined symbol: HMAC_CTX_set_flags
firefox-bin exited with non-zero status (127) |
Same with -browser and -safemode.
What's really strange is if I login to gnome as root or if I lauch firefox-bin from a root shell, firefox-bin works just fine. WTH? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gliverman
n00b
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Carrollton, GA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
| I am setting up an AMD64 system with 2006.1 and wanted to say thanks for the tip on nspluginwrapper... I am letting firefox 2.0.1 build now and added that in to build also. I too want to run as much as I can in 64-bit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overkll
Veteran
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 1249
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| overkll wrote: | I have a similar issue with firefox-bin and gnome-2.16.
| Code: | # firefox-bin -browser
/opt/firefox/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error: /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.7: undefined symbol: HMAC_CTX_set_flags
firefox-bin exited with non-zero status (127) |
Same with -browser and -safemode.
What's really strange is if I login to gnome as root or if I lauch firefox-bin from a root shell, firefox-bin works just fine. WTH? |
My problem turned out to be an libcrypto.so issue with emul-linux-x86-baselibs. There's a version mismatch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
selenvirus
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I notice that Openoffice 2.0.4 is keyworded for ~amd64, does this mean that it's now 64-bit clean (or at least close enough to compile and work)? Has anyone tried emerging it on amd64 yet? I'll be trying tonight...
Edit: Yes it works, see below.THANKS.www.unreadedpost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nightmorph wrote: | I run firefox, firefox-bin, and Gnome together on my (stable) amd64 system. Sometimes it's a pain to make sure the "right" version of firefox is used by default; in my case, I use firefox-bin with netscape-flash.
Note, though, that there are plenty of threads on using 64-bit compiled firefox with nspluginwrapper (in ~amd64) to get working 32-bit plugins, such as Flash (some people have also even got mplayer-bin working for embedded videos), with your 64-bit browser.
Gnome has a few moments where it gets confused if you double click on an html file (or another MIME type that it passes off to the webbrowser), so to make sure only firefox-bin is used, I just right click and hit "Open with", then setup /usr/bin/firefox-bin to always be used. Also, if you use quick launch shortcuts on your Gnome panel, just make sure that the Firefox icon points to /usr/bin/firefox-bin.
As you can see, it's possible to use firefox-bin for everything, while only keeping the compiled version around for programs that build against it. Whenever Yelp runs, it'll use the 64-bit version, but just uncheck that version's "Check to see if it is the default browser" box in Preferences-->General to make sure it doesn't set itself as the default.
Or, if you're willing to put in a little experimentation, it's easily possible to run with just the compiled version and nspluginwrapper for your 32-bit needs. I just haven't bothered to try that yet. |
How do you make sure the right firefox gets run? I've just been comparing my home and work systems...
At home (amd64) I have mozilla-firefox-bin, and at work (x86) I have mozilla-firefox. In each case, there is a "/usr/bin/firefox," but at home it's a symlink to "/usr/bin/firefox-bin". Both scripts are just wrappers for "/usr/libexec/mozilla-launcher".
I'm presuming that I can just install mozilla-firefox, and that it will replace the "/usr/bin/firefox" symlink with the same file I have at work. I can then move that to "/usr/bin/firefox-src" and put the symlink back. But I'll have to do that every time portage gives me a new firefox update. Or am I missing something?
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo on AMD64
