Re: library versions in pkgsrc binaries

[steve%prd.co.uk@localhost (Steve Blinkhorn)]

The basic reason for wanting run a browser on a server is that I have
two Gigabit connections on each, whereas my office connection is only
100Mbit.  I haven't had a browser running successfully on any of my
NetBSD machines for years, and have fallen into the habit of using a
Windows box for WWW access and using samba to direct downloads to
where I want them.   But there's a big gotcha with that.   Windows now
prevents mapped disks from operating if there is an update pending on
the Windows box.   Really.   It's maddening and screws up workflow.

'm not clear whether your suggestion would give me the benefits I'm
looking for (fast downloads onto machines with lots of space, followed
by selectivce downloads of what turns out to be worth having to local
machines).   I spend too much of my life waiting for files.

But thanks for the thought - how very helpfully NetBSD-ish.

--
Steve Blinkhorn <steve%prd.co.uk@localhost>

You wrote:
> 
> On 09/18, Steve Blinkhorn wrote:
> > I currently have two servers running in production mode at a remote
> > data centre.  For reasons discussed in this list back in May/June,
> > they are currently running 8.0_RC1.
> > 
> > I need to get a browser running on one of them, so I tried to pkg_add - u -u
> > firefox60 using as PKG_PATH ..../x86_64/8.0_2018Q1/All.  This version
> > complained that libstdc++.so.8 was not found.   So I tried using
> > ..../x86_64/7.0_2018Q1/All, and got the complaint that libfreetype.so.18
> > was not found.
> 
> Hi, Steve.
> 
> If you really need a browser running on one of them, then OK; but are
> you sure?  I'm only asking in case you've concluded you need this when
> you actually could do something else.  If getting Firefox to run on one
> of your servers is looking to be a real pain, and if all you need is to
> be able to run a browser as if it were running on one of your servers,
> maybe an OpenSSH SOCKS tunnel (i.e., the "-D" option to ssh) would work
> for you?  You'd establish the SOCKS tunnel from your local computer to
> the server and then configure the browser on your local computer to
> use the SOCKS tunnel as its SOCKS proxy.  I understand there could be
> multiple reasons why this wouldn't work for you, but it's just a thought
> in case it would.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lewis
>