On 1 February 2010 19:23, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Mat Booth wrote:
>> On 30 January 2010 22:57, Mike Chambers wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 22:37 +, Mat Booth wrote:
Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
a lot of
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Mat Booth wrote:
> On 30 January 2010 22:57, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 22:37 +, Mat Booth wrote:
>>> Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
>>> a lot of extra work for not a lot of gain.
>> Running a fully upd
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 12:08 +, M A Young wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, drago01 wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM, M A Young wrote:
> >>
> >> That doesn't work as nicely as perhaps it should because
> >> yum downgrade firefox
> >> only downgrades firefox and not xulrunner, and as a re
On 30 January 2010 22:57, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 22:37 +, Mat Booth wrote:
>
>> Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
>> a lot of extra work for not a lot of gain.
>
> Running a fully updated system, I upgraded to firefox-3.6 in rawhide
>
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM, M A Young wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't work as nicely as perhaps it should because
>> yum downgrade firefox
>> only downgrades firefox and not xulrunner, and as a result the downgraded
>> firefox refuses to run. You need at least
>
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM, M A Young wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/10 12:59, M A Young wrote:
>>
>>> At the moment it does for you, though more updates may be required
>>> depending on what you have installed, but you also have to think longer
>>> term, becau
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 31/01/10 12:59, M A Young wrote:
>
>> At the moment it does for you, though more updates may be required
>> depending on what you have installed, but you also have to think longer
>> term, because the latest Fedora release and rawhide will tend to move
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 22:37 +, Mat Booth wrote:
> Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
> a lot of extra work for not a lot of gain.
Running a fully updated system, I upgraded to firefox-3.6 in rawhide
today, and it only updated 3 (firefox, xulrunner, and some
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> True, but if necessary.
> You can always yum downgrade x
> Especially if you just need to check out package x.
In such scenarios you might find the ``yum history'' command useful
since it can easily undo upgrades that include dependencies.
--
On 31/01/10 12:59, M A Young wrote:
--snipped--
>>
>>
>> If you'd taken half a minute to check, you would have seen that it
>> sucks in
>> a grand total of sqlite and xulrunner. Yeehaw.
>
> At the moment it does for you, though more updates may be required
> depending on what you have installed,
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Wes Shull wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
Wes Shull wrote:
> yum --enablerepo=rawhide update firefox
NEVER do that!!!
If you'd taken half a minute to check, you would have seen that it sucks in
a grand total of sqlite and xulrunner
On 31 January 2010 08:14, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christopher Brown wrote:
>> This is because 3.5.7 doesn't affect us. Stability issue is for
>> Windows people and update notification is patched out for obvious
>> reasons.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL%20status1.9.1%
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Wes Shull wrote:
> > yum --enablerepo=rawhide update firefox
>
> NEVER do that!!!
>
If you'd taken half a minute to check, you would have seen that it sucks in
a grand total of sqlite and xulrunner. Yeehaw.
If anything, you should be chasti
Christopher Brown wrote:
> This is because 3.5.7 doesn't affect us. Stability issue is for
> Windows people and update notification is patched out for obvious
> reasons.
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ALL%20status1.9.1%3A.7-fixed
What about the NTLM issue? That looks lik
Frank Murphy wrote:
> You can update to 3.6
> from Rawhide,
> then disable rawhide again.
>
> Which is what I have done,
> no problems yet.
NEVER do that!!!
You probably have way more Rawhide packages than just Firefox now. At least
xulrunner and all the stuff using its "unstable API", probably
Mail Lists wrote:
> I think we need to use sun java as green tea is not yet on new api
> anyway is it?
The IcedTea plugin is in Fedora (as java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin). Fedora does
not and will not ship proprietary software such as the Sun Java plugin (from
the non-open JDK or JRE).
A new versi
Wes Shull wrote:
> yum --enablerepo=rawhide update firefox
NEVER do that!!!
You probably have way more Rawhide packages than just Firefox now. At least
xulrunner and all the stuff using its "unstable API", probably also sqlite
and a lot more stuff. Each time your package depends on a newer libr
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:00 -0500, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 01/30/2010 01:53 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 11:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed firefo
On 01/30/2010 05:37 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
> a lot of extra work for not a lot of gain.
>
I much prefer chrome and use it preferentially now anyway ... I'd
prefer we put any broswer related energy into chromium - it is alre
On 30 January 2010 20:04, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 01/30/2010 02:54 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
>
>> Well there's the Java and Totem plugins at least, but there's a whole
>> slew of apps in Fedora that build against xulrunner:
>
> I think we need to use sun java as green tea is not yet on new api
> anyway
On 01/30/2010 02:54 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> Well there's the Java and Totem plugins at least, but there's a whole
> slew of apps in Fedora that build against xulrunner:
I think we need to use sun java as green tea is not yet on new api
anyway is it?
>
> repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps xulru
On 30 January 2010 19:00, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 01/30/2010 01:53 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 11:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.
On 30/01/10 08:42, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> So it doesn't have an official one?
>
Not in F12,
but as has been said.
You can update to 3.6
from Rawhide,
then disable rawhide again.
Which is what I have done,
no problems yet.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
On 30 January 2010 06:48, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
> What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
This is because 3.5.7 doesn't affect us. Stability issue is for
Windows people and update notification is pat
On 01/30/2010 01:53 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 11:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
Hi,
I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
What about 3.5.7 and
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 11:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
> >> What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
> >
Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
>> What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
>
> xulrunner-1.9.2 breaks API compatibility with 1.9.1, so downstream
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
> What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
xulrunner-1.9.2 breaks API compatibility with 1.9.1, so downstream
packages would need patching for
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Wes Shull wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Liu Yu Fei Eric
wrote:
So it doesn't have an official one?
I've been running the f13 build out of rawhide for a week now, and it's
worked fine for me... not sure about Java though.
yum --enablerepo=rawhide update f
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Liu Yu Fei Eric
wrote:
> So it doesn't have an official one?
I've been running the f13 build out of rawhide for a week now, and it's
worked fine for me... not sure about Java though.
yum --enablerepo=rawhide update firefox
--wes (f12-x86_64)
--
devel mailing
So it doesn't have an official one?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> > I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
> > What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
>
> http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/01/2
Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
> I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
> What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/01/22/Firefox-3.6-en
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
Hi,
I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
33 matches
Mail list logo
