FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-25-2011, 04:56 PM
Brian
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 15:44:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> Yes, I already read that announcement message and that's why I find it
> very appropriate, specially for points 1) and 4).

The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
there is a later version out. The later version may have a few more
*additional* useful enhancements but that is not what point 4 is about,
And what is in Iceweasel 7.0 which makes it urgent for *all* users to
have it available in squeeze-updates?

Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
packages. They are splendid resources.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110925165632.GD6253@desktop">http://lists.debian.org/20110925165632.GD6253@desktop
 
Old 09-25-2011, 05:35 PM
Camaleón
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:56:32 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 15:44:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Yes, I already read that announcement message and that's why I find it
>> very appropriate, specially for points 1) and 4).
>
> The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
> there is a later version out.

Yes, they do.

Many sites out there require fancy things like html5. And you cannot
fight against Google nor big sites about it: if you have an older
browser, forget about using many of their options.

> The later version may have a few more *additional* useful enhancements
> but that is not what point 4 is about, And what is in Iceweasel 7.0
> which makes it urgent for *all* users to have it available in squeeze
>-updates?

Mozilla quick release policy is very aggresive and -we like it not- it
affects their users. AFAIK, version 7 is not their stable branch... yet.

> Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
> packages. They are splendid resources.

Not for many users, mostly newcomers. The less repositories to deal with,
the better for system stability and peace of mind.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.09.25.17.35.46@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.25.17.35.46@gmail.com
 
Old 09-25-2011, 06:35 PM
Peter Tenenbaum
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

Ah, that webpage did the trick, thanks!

-PT

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Peter Tenenbaum <peter.g.tenenbaum@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to migrate to firefox 6.0, but I'd like to do it using the debian iceweasel distribution.* Can anyone tell me how to go about setting that up?


Thanks in advance,
-PT
 
Old 09-25-2011, 06:51 PM
Allan Wind
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On 2011-09-25 17:56:32, Brian wrote:
> The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
> there is a later version out.

The environment changes relative to a frozen browser which reduce
the usefulness to me.

Google Apps was mentioned earlier which used to work and now give
you an ugly warning upon login. Their admin interface to
add/remove users did not work for many months (I had to install
chromium for that task).

Addons for Firefox continue to evolve and some do not preserve
backwards compatibility. Firebug comes to mind. While you can
continue to use the old version, you no longer get the benefit of
improvements or bug fixes in addons.

> The later version may have a few more
> *additional* useful enhancements but that is not what point 4 is about,
> And what is in Iceweasel 7.0 which makes it urgent for *all* users to
> have it available in squeeze-updates?

I appreciate the benefits of stable especially on the server
side. But does anyone really benefit from running Firefox 3.5.x
opposed to more current version?

> Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
> packages. They are splendid resources.

I knew of backport but not iceweasel-release. How do people find
out of those semi-official repos? Is there a way to tell how
many people actually make use of it? If it is more than x%
should it not be the default configuration?


/Allan
--
Allan Wind
Life Integrity, LLC
<http://lifeintegrity.com>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110925185100.GA7003@vent.lifeintegrity.localnet" >http://lists.debian.org/20110925185100.GA7003@vent.lifeintegrity.localnet
 
Old 09-25-2011, 07:06 PM
Brian
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 17:35:46 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:56:32 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> > The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
> > there is a later version out.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> Many sites out there require fancy things like html5. And you cannot
> fight against Google nor big sites about it: if you have an older
> browser, forget about using many of their options.

The version of the utility sort on this machine does not have a -h
option. sort is designed to sort lines of text files. Without -h it
still does that job. It has *lost* none of its functionality because it
does not have -h.

Iceweasel on Squeeze may not do all of html5 compared with a later
version but it too has not had its functionality *diminished*. It does
not need to be current to be useful for the things it was designed to
do.

Now think of clamv. What is it designed to do? Does it need to be
current to be useful over the two year lifetime of a stable release?
Does it lose any functionality over time? Would a program which was
capable of detecting only 72% of malware be deemed ok?

Your argument would have all of GNOME in squeeze-updates.

> > The later version may have a few more *additional* useful enhancements
> > but that is not what point 4 is about, And what is in Iceweasel 7.0
> > which makes it urgent for *all* users to have it available in squeeze
> >-updates?
>
> Mozilla quick release policy is very aggresive and -we like it not- it
> affects their users. AFAIK, version 7 is not their stable branch... yet.

It will soon be in unstable. Is there something in it which *all* users
should *urgently* consider using?

> > Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
> > packages. They are splendid resources.
>
> Not for many users, mostly newcomers. The less repositories to deal with,
> the better for system stability and peace of mind.

squeeze-updates has very few packages in it. You would have to make a
conscious decision to have backports and mozilla.debian.net in your
sources.list.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110925190611.GE6253@desktop">http://lists.debian.org/20110925190611.GE6253@desktop
 
Old 09-25-2011, 08:02 PM
Camaleón
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:06:11 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 17:35:46 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:56:32 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness because
>> > there is a later version out.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>> Many sites out there require fancy things like html5. And you cannot
>> fight against Google nor big sites about it: if you have an older
>> browser, forget about using many of their options.
>
> The version of the utility sort on this machine does not have a -h
> option. sort is designed to sort lines of text files. Without -h it
> still does that job. It has *lost* none of its functionality because it
> does not have -h.

I think that's not comparable with a browser functionality that is needed
for almost 50% of today's most used sites... how many people uses sort
every day and how many people uses Iceweasel every day? :-)

> Iceweasel on Squeeze may not do all of html5 compared with a later
> version but it too has not had its functionality *diminished*. It does
> not need to be current to be useful for the things it was designed to
> do.

If you say so... then why not keep Iceweasel 2.x branch? Let's patch it
"ad infinitum" to make it more secure and all happy, right? I don't think
so :-)

> Now think of clamv. What is it designed to do? Does it need to be
> current to be useful over the two year lifetime of a stable release?
> Does it lose any functionality over time? Would a program which was
> capable of detecting only 72% of malware be deemed ok?

ClamAV does not need to be up-to-date neither, it just need security
fixes. It's firmware files that keep the program useful not the program
itself.

> Your argument would have all of GNOME in squeeze-updates.

Nope, GNOME (hopefully!) does not have the same release cycle than
Mozilla.

>> > The later version may have a few more *additional* useful
>> > enhancements but that is not what point 4 is about, And what is in
>> > Iceweasel 7.0 which makes it urgent for *all* users to have it
>> > available in squeeze
>> >-updates?
>>
>> Mozilla quick release policy is very aggresive and -we like it not- it
>> affects their users. AFAIK, version 7 is not their stable branch...
>> yet.
>
> It will soon be in unstable. Is there something in it which *all* users
> should *urgently* consider using?

We are not talking here about the need of Mozilla packages to be updated
(it is obvious that is something users need and for that reason exists
Mozilla repo and backports) but the proper repo for where to put those
packages.

>> > Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
>> > packages. They are splendid resources.
>>
>> Not for many users, mostly newcomers. The less repositories to deal
>> with, the better for system stability and peace of mind.
>
> squeeze-updates has very few packages in it. You would have to make a
> conscious decision to have backports and mozilla.debian.net in your
> sources.list.

And that's the point.

I find "squeeze-updates" very useful and most of the users will already
have it in their "sources.list" file but the more repos you add, the more
chances you have to mess things up and "forcing" the user to take such
decision just to get Mozilla packages updated can be overly.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.09.25.20.02.22@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.25.20.02.22@gmail.com
 
Old 09-25-2011, 11:16 PM
Brian
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 20:02:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> I think that's not comparable with a browser functionality that is needed
> for almost 50% of today's most used sites... how many people uses sort
> every day and how many people uses Iceweasel every day? :-)

I wasn't comparing sort's functionality with Iceweasel's but countering
the assertion that a later changed version of a program causes the
original one to lose its usefulness. You haven't addressed this (apart
from saying 'Yes, they do.') so it appears I've been successful in
making my point that Iceweasel doesn't satisfy the fourth criterion for
inclusion in squeeze-updates.

> If you say so... then why not keep Iceweasel 2.x branch? Let's patch it
> "ad infinitum" to make it more secure and all happy, right? I don't think
> so :-)

squeeze-updates has nothing to do with security.

> ClamAV does not need to be up-to-date neither, it just need security
> fixes. It's firmware files that keep the program useful not the program
> itself.

squeeze-updates has nothing to do with security. So which criteria does
clamav fulfil to be there?

> We are not talking here about the need of Mozilla packages to be updated
> (it is obvious that is something users need and for that reason exists
> Mozilla repo and backports) but the proper repo for where to put those
> packages.

Which is why I emphasised the word 'urgently' to stress it was criterion
number 1 for inclusion in squeeze-updates which needed consideration.
Unfortunately it wasn't given any.

> And that's the point.
>
> I find "squeeze-updates" very useful and most of the users will already
> have it in their "sources.list" file but the more repos you add, the more
> chances you have to mess things up and "forcing" the user to take such
> decision just to get Mozilla packages updated can be overly.

squeeze-updates contains a mere 33 packages derived from only 6 sources.
tzdata may be the one many users would want updating.

The principal reason users want their usual archive and squeeze-updates
in sources.list is not to lose out. With any other archive (testing,
backports etc) they aim to gain. Mozilla packages which are not fixes
for security issues rightly belong in the second category because they
have nothing to contribute to keeping a stable system stable.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110925231604.GF6253@desktop">http://lists.debian.org/20110925231604.GF6253@desktop
 
Old 09-26-2011, 03:45 AM
Scott Ferguson
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On 26/09/11 04:51, Allan Wind wrote:
> On 2011-09-25 17:56:32, Brian wrote:
>> The squeeze version of Iceweasel doesn't lose its usefulness
>> because there is a later version out.
>
> The environment changes relative to a frozen browser which reduce
> the usefulness to me.

?

What changes in the internet render the default Squeeze Iceweasel
unusable other than the latest extensions?
We're a long way from HTML5 yet.

NOTE: warning from webservers based on version numbers doesn't count.

>
> Google Apps was mentioned earlier which used to work and now give
> you an ugly warning upon login. Their admin interface to add/remove
> users did not work for many months (I had to install chromium for
> that task).

Does when you change the useragentstring.

>
> Addons for Firefox continue to evolve and some do not preserve
> backwards compatibility.

Agreed. Conditionally.

Some extensions can be installed from Debian repositories or the Mozilla
extensions page. If installed from the Debian repository (eg "apt-cache
search xul-ext") you will need to pull them from Wheezy *and* in some
cases they will still need you to "hack" the minversionnumber before
they'll work (noscript, adblock-plus, firebug etc)

If using mozilla repository to run backported versions of IceDove - best
to uninstall all extensions installed from Debian repositories - then
upgrade, then install only from the Mozilla extensions site.

There will still be occasions when you may need to install other
packages from Wheezy or Experimental depending on your extensions/plugins.

> Firebug comes to mind.

It requires packages from Wheezy - but it will run on Squeeze using
Iceweasel 6.0.2 (I run 1.8.3)

> While you can continue to use the old version, you no longer get the
> benefit of improvements or bug fixes in addons.

Sometimes unsupported extensions become invisible in the extensions page
in Iceweasel - but cause major slowdowns in page rendering. eg.
PageSpeed if Firebug is not upgrade.

>
>> The later version may have a few more *additional* useful
>> enhancements but that is not what point 4 is about, And what is in
>> Iceweasel 7.0 which makes it urgent for *all* users to have it
>> available in squeeze-updates?
>
> I appreciate the benefits of stable especially on the server side.
> But does anyone really benefit from running Firefox 3.5.x opposed to
> more current version?

Yes - everything. just. works.

Changing the useragent string solves most of the complaints about
"unsupported version" messages from sites, leaving only unsupported
extensions as a reason to upgrade.

>
>> Backports and mozilla.debian.net are the places for updated Mozilla
>> packages. They are splendid resources.
>
> I knew of backport but not iceweasel-release. How do people find
> out of those semi-official repos?

Search engines....
See:-
http://wiki.debian.org/UnofficialRepositories
http://www.apt-get.org/

> Is there a way to tell how many people actually make use of it?

NAFAIK

> If it is more than x% should it not be the default configuration?

The process for deciding that is a vote.

>
>
> /Allan

Cheers


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4E7FF558.1070100@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4E7FF558.1070100@gmail.com
 
Old 09-26-2011, 11:35 AM
Camaleón
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:16:04 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 20:02:22 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> I think that's not comparable with a browser functionality that is
>> needed for almost 50% of today's most used sites... how many people
>> uses sort every day and how many people uses Iceweasel every day? :-)
>
> I wasn't comparing sort's functionality with Iceweasel's but countering
> the assertion that a later changed version of a program causes the
> original one to lose its usefulness. You haven't addressed this (apart
> from saying 'Yes, they do.') so it appears I've been successful in
> making my point that Iceweasel doesn't satisfy the fourth criterion for
> inclusion in squeeze-updates.

Hey, you can't auto-give you a point for something that I have not
discussed ;-)

Regards to the 4th point that says "a package needs to be current to be
useful" it fully fits with Iceweasel but I wouldn't say so for clamav.

ClamAV is a package focused on doing mostly one thing: detect malware
while Iceweasel is a multipurpose application because browsing involves
more activities than just rendering a page in your browser.

So while ClamAV will still be doing what it should do regardless its
version, Iceweasel won't be of usefulness when its not current.

>> If you say so... then why not keep Iceweasel 2.x branch? Let's patch it
>> "ad infinitum" to make it more secure and all happy, right? I don't
>> think so :-)
>
> squeeze-updates has nothing to do with security.

Well, let me think...

clamav was in volatile repo
volatile repo provided their own security fixes
volatile repo has been replaced by squeeze-updates

I love the logic behind the things :-)

>> ClamAV does not need to be up-to-date neither, it just need security
>> fixes. It's firmware files that keep the program useful not the program
>> itself.
>
> squeeze-updates has nothing to do with security. So which criteria does
> clamav fulfil to be there?

Clamav was on volatile repo and it received (receives) updates for
security fixes, don't know if that respond your concerns. I hope squeeze-
updates still follows that tradition (I know it does) :-)

>> We are not talking here about the need of Mozilla packages to be
>> updated (it is obvious that is something users need and for that reason
>> exists Mozilla repo and backports) but the proper repo for where to put
>> those packages.
>
> Which is why I emphasised the word 'urgently' to stress it was criterion
> number 1 for inclusion in squeeze-updates which needed consideration.
> Unfortunately it wasn't given any.
>
>> And that's the point.
>>
>> I find "squeeze-updates" very useful and most of the users will already
>> have it in their "sources.list" file but the more repos you add, the
>> more chances you have to mess things up and "forcing" the user to take
>> such decision just to get Mozilla packages updated can be overly.
>
> squeeze-updates contains a mere 33 packages derived from only 6 sources.
> tzdata may be the one many users would want updating.

Similar to what volatile repo had.

> The principal reason users want their usual archive and squeeze-updates
> in sources.list is not to lose out. With any other archive (testing,
> backports etc) they aim to gain.

What they will gain is package messing and having to deal with pinning :-)

> Mozilla packages which are not fixes for security issues rightly belong
> in the second category because they have nothing to contribute to
> keeping a stable system stable.

I guess that Mozilla new versioning system is aimed to consider
deprecated/outdated/unsupported whatever version is not their last stable
(unless they provide a separated long term branch). They have changed the
rules of the play and we have to understand -and cope with- that.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2011.09.26.11.35.50@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.26.11.35.50@gmail.com
 
Old 09-26-2011, 01:33 PM
Brian
 
Default iceweasel based on firefox 6.0 for squeeze

On Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 11:35:51 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> Hey, you can't auto-give you a point for something that I have not
> discussed ;-)

You were being tardy in getting round to it so it needed something to
prod you into action.

> Regards to the 4th point that says "a package needs to be current to be
> useful" it fully fits with Iceweasel but I wouldn't say so for clamav.

It is clear we have diametrically opposite views, so best leave it
there.

> Well, let me think...
>
> clamav was in volatile repo
> volatile repo provided their own security fixes
> volatile repo has been replaced by squeeze-updates
>
> I love the logic behind the things :-)

Three correct statements but an unjustified conclusion. My statement
that squeeze-updates does not deal with security was informed by

This suite will contain updates that satisfy one of the
following criteria:

* The update is urgent and not of a security nature.
Security updates will continue to be pushed through
the security archive.

> Clamav was on volatile repo and it received (receives) updates for
> security fixes, don't know if that respond your concerns. I hope squeeze-
> updates still follows that tradition (I know it does) :-)

Please see previously.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110926133331.GG6253@desktop">http://lists.debian.org/20110926133331.GG6253@desktop
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:52 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org