Home > Firefox Error > Firefox Error Libxul.so

Firefox Error Libxul.so

Comment 46 Mike Hommey [:glandium] 2012-12-07 01:21:52 PST (In reply to weliot from comment #45) > (In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #44) > > FWIW, I can't reproduce What makes up $17,500 cost to outfit a U.S. Maybe we should dupe this bug there. glib is 2.22, glibc is 2.10.1. http://hprank.net/firefox-error/firefox-error-202.html

Sorry for the confusion! The only thing I could do was downgrade to firefox 17 and it works perfectly. It took a while before I realised that it was required. Not the answer you're looking for? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=723487

Comment 9 :aceman 2011-11-22 10:59:08 PST I also watch a similar report in bug 685433. The initial problem I encountered when I updated firefox and tried to start it was XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /usr/lib/firefox/libxul.so: libicui18n.so.54: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Comment 9 John Daggett (:jtd) 2016-01-27 15:33:28 PST (In reply to Jonathan Kew (:jfkthame) from comment #5) > A workaround would presumably be to set the pref > gfx.font_rendering.fontconfig.fontlist.enabled to false, But this basically means that the 17ESR “series” is (and will be?) the last series to run on Kubuntu Hardy, right? (I guess we can live with that, considering it’s an

[email protected] NewAccount | Log In or Remember [x] | Forgot Password Login: [x] Home | New | Browse | Search | [help] | Reports | Product Dashboard Persona is no longer Could you re-run nm on the previous libxul.so which did not start? There's no reason this should fail to run. Here is a screenshot : http://www.mirari.fr/qNPq I need to use Fx 17.0.5 ESR to get it working.

I should say that all of checked versions were 32-bit. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... Just in case it helps anyone. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=704298 Comment 74 Gustavo Homem 2013-02-02 06:30:22 PST The problem happens with Firefox 18.0.1 x64 on a Mandriva 2009.1 x64 based system and indeed LD_LIBRARY_PATH makes a difference.

Has anyone encountered this problem? x220:/tmp/firefox$ find -name libxpcom.so ./libxpcom.so x220:/tmp/firefox$ ./run-mozilla.sh run-mozilla.sh: Cannot execute . Then seamonkey 2.15.1 works correctly. Home Categories FAQ/Guidelines Terms of Service Privacy Policy Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled EL.Web.ID Programmer by Day, Blogger by Night iMacros Java Javascript Linux Uncategorized WordPress Home»Linux »

too many potential accidents otherwise. Comment 45 weliot 2012-12-07 00:57:36 PST (In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #44) > FWIW, I can't reproduce on debian squeeze with the Firefox 17.0.1 builds, > neither on glibc 2.12 Comment 27 Stefan 2012-10-14 11:03:03 PDT (In reply to Ian Nartowicz from comment #26) > I got this with 18.0a1 nightly downloaded Sep 21st. 32 bit running on 32 Clearly this is the wrong bug or wrong place for discussion of this.

I setup the symlink wrapper only after finding that FF8 would not run at /home/pfortin/firefox, /usr/local/bin/firefox, or anywhere else I tried installing it... http://hprank.net/firefox-error/firefox-error-xpcom-dll.html So you didn't break anything. I have tried executing with the wrapper script. A workaround would presumably be to set the pref gfx.font_rendering.fontconfig.fontlist.enabled to false, so as to use the old code (until it gets removed).

I thought it was self-contained and depended on no external libraries (I use the firefox you download from Mozilla, not Mandriva's. Pentest Results: Questionable CSRF Attack Have we attempted to experimentally confirm gravitational time dilation? Firefix 17 started to work when the beta was > released, but 18 beta 3 still not running. his comment is here Sorry for the confusion!

The way I debugged is by finding that the firefox executable is a 32-bit executable, and it needs xulrunner (for XPCOM), and the 32-bit libraries for running a 32-bit executable. If you are reading a submeaning in my words then I apologize for poorly choosing my words, but there is really no intention of submeaning there. Workaround: install FF17.0.2esr Comment 23 Mary C.

share|improve this answer answered Nov 16 '15 at 15:43 starfry 1,90311732 add a comment| Your Answer draft saved draft discarded Sign up or log in Sign up using Google Sign

asked 2 years ago viewed 12098 times active 1 year ago Blog Stack Overflow Podcast #95 - Shakespearian SQL Server Related 3Installing flash player for Firefox2Which library files are needed to merl merlin1012 2016-07-07 21:29:38 UTC #4 SOLUTION! (for me at least )Remove FirefoxRestartInstall FirefoxWorks like its always been there Hope this works for someone else, wish it didn't have to be Since Arch's firefox has no problems, I assume this is some sort of difference in the builds. What is the command?

Comment 15 Kai Hendry 2012-08-10 04:25:36 PDT On Archlinux, I simply downloaded FF and run it's binary: x220:/tmp/firefox$ ./firefox XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /tmp/firefox/libxpcom.so: libxul.so: cannot open shared object file: No Comment 101 Anthony Hughes (:ashughes) [GFX][QA][Mentor] 2014-04-10 10:41:07 PDT (In reply to pvelkovski from comment #100) > Anthony Hughes, since your last post started with "We ...", and there is a I hope that clears up any confusion. weblink Sometimes I have noticed people make a new user to try to chase down a problem.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug. Comment 24 Josh Matthews [:jdm] 2012-09-03 15:06:03 PDT I also see this problem with the release tarball of FF 17a2 on Fedora 17. Does it make it clear that the fontconfig version is the problem? [1] http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/try-builds/jkew@mozilla.com-7b6b0573829d4558bfee19470bec62199843e035/try-linux64/firefox-47.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2 Comment 13 R Fleck 2016-01-28 10:31:37 PST down loaded and installed firefox-47.0a1.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2 on SuSE 11 SP3 XPCOMGlueLoad Just be sure (of course) to download the linux-x86_64 .tar.bz2 (and I recommend also the corresponding .txt, it tells you exactly from which comm-{aurora|central} and mozilla-{aurora|central} changesets the build was made),

Same solution here. In addition, there are 3 new folders in modules: commonjs identity services. $ uname -a Linux suse2 2.6.27.19-5-default #1 SMP 2009-02-28 04:40:21 +0100 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ cat /etc/SuSE-release SUSE Have you downloaded the proper FF binary? 32bit or 64bit? You can do so here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=www.mozilla.org If you are a user on a Linux distribution which provides its own Firefox packages then I usually recommend you stick to those packages.

It's possible that you're seeing this error because of an unsupported version of libdbus-glib or if you're using the incorrect Firefox build for your architecture. It seems that firefox is definitely dead for mandriva 2010, right???? At the very least a 64bit user should receive some warning that the 32bit download may not be suitable. didn't notice it at the time...

Register Now! It works! We don't support specific distributions, instead we support different platform configurations (kernel, libraries, etc). Thank You Comment 25 andré 2013-01-26 11:54:57 PST Had the same error message for seamonkey 2.14.1 and 2.15.1 after installing on a new 64-bit machine. 2.14.1 had worked ok on my

i.e., $ ff 11 does: remove the old links add links to .mozilla11 and firefox11 starts the version pointed to by the symlinks nothing more than a minor slight of hand... I would have done it myself, but I have no idea where specificaly I should do it, as the categories offerted on this page https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi are not really related to the The call to FcConfigReference is used when keeping a pointer to the last used FcConfig object: template <> class nsAutoRefTraits : public nsPointerRefTraits { public: static void Release(FcConfig *ptr) { FcConfigDestroy(ptr); and some duplicates Last edited by wonder (2011-11-09 20:17:02) Give what you have.

Got this, my first 64bit machine a few days ago, so sorry for any confusion... That said, Bugzilla is not a forum to discuss support decisions. E.g.