Today Opera 9 has been released. I guess modifying the www-client/opera-9.00_pre2 ebuild should do the trick.
@axxo: BTW, please stick GCONF_DEBUG="no" above the inherit line, so that we can get rid of the bogus debug flag coming from the gnome2 eclass.
Created attachment 89636 [details] opera-9.0.ebuild based on beta2 ebuild from #122036
Created attachment 89638 [details, diff] opera-9.0-install.patch .. and the corresponding patch. All the above has been tested on (~)x86 only.
Works fine. But where is the icon?
Created attachment 89726 [details] opera.desktop
Created attachment 89727 [details] opera-9.0.ebuild This fix URL, becouse OPERASUFF is now just en.
Created attachment 89738 [details] opera-9.0.ebuild OK, now there are OPERASUFF and OPERALNGSUFF, it should rely work now!
But why this ebuild tries to download all versions of opera (for ppc, sparc, with qt or without it etc.) when I only need i386 shared qt version? Is it normal while merging with --digest ?
(In reply to comment #8) > But why this ebuild tries to download all versions of opera (for ppc, sparc, > with qt or without it etc.) when I only need i386 shared qt version? > > Is it normal while merging with --digest ? Sure... How would you like to generate the digest otherwise?
(In reply to comment #8) > But why this ebuild tries to download all versions of opera (for ppc, sparc, > with qt or without it etc.) when I only need i386 shared qt version? > > Is it normal while merging with --digest ? > You can change SRC_URI to something like this for example if you does not wont to Download everything: SRC_URI="x86? ( !qt-static? ( ${OPERA_URI}i386/shared/${PN}-${OPERAVER}.5-shared-qt.i386-en.tar.bz2 ) )"
Opera 9 solves a security problem with jpeg: http://www.vigilantminds.com/advi_detail.php?id=45 It seems like at least all prior versions in portage are affected too.
(In reply to comment #11) > Opera 9 solves a security problem with jpeg: > > http://www.vigilantminds.com/advi_detail.php?id=45 > > It seems like at least all prior versions in portage are affected too. > Adding security to CC.
There is a security bug about this vulnerability, see bug #137634.
> The author told me that needed plugins for a minimal kxdocker > installation are: > kde-misc/kxdocker-resources-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-trayiconlogger-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-dcop-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-thememanager-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-configurator-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-taskmanager-1.0.0 > kde-misc/kxdocker-mountmanager-1.0.0 Maybe we could cut this list too? As for me I unmerged mountmanager just after installing kxdocker.
(In reply to comment #14) > > The author told me that needed plugins for a minimal kxdocker > > installation are: ??? :=)
Uhm... wait... I didn't write it! I just wanted to add myself to CC
Opera has released the first bugfix for Opera 9.0. See http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/show.dml/311780. I'm not sure if it is already named Opera 9.01 or not. To built it the line OPERAVER="9.0-20060616" in the ebuild should now be OPERAVER="9.0-20060622"
(In reply to comment #17) I was too enthusiastic. The updated file is not yet present on ftp.opera.com so ignore my comment on changing the Opera-version in the ebuild.
you should change OPERASUFF to "en"
(In reply to comment #19) > you should change OPERASUFF to "en" > It is changed in my ebuild (4.34 KB from 2006-06-21). Is it? It works fine for me,
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > I was too enthusiastic. The updated file is not yet present on ftp.opera.com so > ignore my comment on changing the Opera-version in the ebuild. > 9.0-20060616 build is available now http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/Weekly-362/intel-linux/ one more thing ebuild don't work for me it does'nt download appropriate version, shared or static I have not set static-qt USE flag and ebuild script tries get opera-9.0-20060622.1-static-qt.i386-en.tar.bz2 file what is wrong?
I see that this bug is assigned to axxo. But he is listed as away in the developer list.
Created attachment 89993 [details] opera-9.0-r1.ebuild (Weekly-362 - x86 only)
(In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #18) > > (In reply to comment #17) > > > > I was too enthusiastic. The updated file is not yet present on ftp.opera.com so > > ignore my comment on changing the Opera-version in the ebuild. > > > 9.0-20060616 build is available now > http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/Weekly-362/intel-linux/ > one more thing > ebuild don't work for me > it does'nt download appropriate version, shared or static > I have not set static-qt USE flag and ebuild script tries get > opera-9.0-20060622.1-static-qt.i386-en.tar.bz2 file > what is wrong? > If you do "ebuild opera-9.0.ebuild digest" it IS NORMAL to download all files from SRC_URI so it can make digest, and we have alredy sad that in prevous posts! If you need that bugfix, I have build new ebuild for it but it is not tested. It is only for X86!
I read in some opera information it needs OpenSSL 0.9.8. Although it's a little strange because I thought it had an internal mechanism to create SSH connections. Anyone seen that too or maybe running without OpenSSL/OpenSSH so it can be checked?
Opera 9.0 vulnerability: http://www.critical.lt/research/opera_die_happy.html
Is anybody going to put this opera into portage? It is nice to put both opera-9.0 and opera-9.0-r1 becouse there is no bugfix (or I don't know about it) for amd64 and ppc.
bumped
Is it intentional that the package.mask for opera 9 betas also masks this opera 9?? Snip from /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Thomas Matthijs <axxo@gentoo.org> (23 Oct 2005) # Preview release =www-client/opera-9*
And, maybe it is better to put opera 9.0 stable and opera 9.0-r1 stable than beta2. This way x86 users would get opera 9.0-r1 installed with bugfix, but for ppc and sparc would be ussed old 9.0. I am putting fixed opera 9.0-r1 ebuild...
Closed, enough noise here.
Created attachment 90182 [details] opera-9.0-r1.ebuild So this should be into portage instead beta2. It is ebuild for ~x86 and ~amd64. For sparc and ppc you should use opera-9.0.ebuild.
