FF 3 was released today, as most people probably know. According to
http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat plans
to make the final version of Firefox 3 available to Fedora and RHEL
customers on June 17." but maybe that's just creative journalism. &qu
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> FF 3 was released today, as most people probably know. According to
> http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat
> plans to make the final version of Firefox 3 available to Fedora and
> RHEL customers on June 17." but
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 23:52 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > FF 3 was released today, as most people probably know. According to
> > http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat
> > plans to make the final version o
Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes:
> It hit the master repo not too long ago, so it won't long until it
> starts landing on the mirrors.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2008-June/msg00726.html
Any plans to build for F8?
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@re
Hello...
On 6/18/08, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Todd Zullinger pobox.com> writes:
>
> > It hit the master repo not too long ago, so it won't long until it
> > starts landing on the mirrors.
> >
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2008-June/msg00726.html
>
> Any plan
Patrick O'Callaghan spake thusly:
> FF 3 was released today, as most people probably know. According to
> http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat plans
> to make the final version of Firefox 3 available to Fedora and RHEL
> customers on June 17.&
On 18/06/08 11:57, Scott wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan spake thusly:
FF 3 was released today, as most people probably know. According to
http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat plans
to make the final version of Firefox 3 available to Fedora and RHEL
customers
software/article.php/3753196 "Red Hat
> > > plans to make the final version of Firefox 3 available to Fedora and
> > > RHEL customers on June 17." but maybe that's just creative
> > > journalism. "yum update" isn't seeing it yet but of co
Wong Kwok-hon a écrit :
Any plans to build for F8?
Yes, would any plans to build for Fedora 8 ?
A backport of F9 RPM is available on my little repo.
http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2008/06/18/Firefox-3-Final
Feel free to try it
++
P.S : FC6, F7 and F8, i386, x86_64 and ppc available
I really don't have time for this tonight.
On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Steve Hill wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
[...]
Some apps show you a EULA for the GPL when they install. And if
you can7t agree to the GPL, you can click disagree and refrain
from installing.
The GPL i
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:45 +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
> > Here's the problem... Steve hasn't actually seen how the EULA
> > situation for FF3 is handled in Fedora 9.
>
> Correct, which is why my original question was basically: does this issue
> affect
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
If you do not agree to the GPL, you have no license at all, and the only
thing that allows you to use the software in any way is fair use. Fair use
does not necessarily cover running the software.
Certainly not the case the world over. ISTR that UK copyr
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
If you're interested in the full story of how we've gotten to where we
are now, I've written it up here:
http://spot.livejournal.com/299409.html
Thank you - that is a very informative article.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PRO
Steve Hill wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
Did you read it?
Yep.
Some apps show you a EULA for the GPL when they install. And if you
can7t agree to the GPL, you can click disagree and refrain from
installing.
The GPL is not an EULA - the end user is not required to agree to
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 08:24 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
It's absolutely pointless to have a discussion about EULA text we are
not showing.
jef"Is pretty sure that Ubuntu isn't showing this:
http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/ "spaleta
Some might call that a EULA, but I wouldn't
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> No. For example, even with GPL, it's normal for people to insist that
> their software is not being released for purposes of helping commit
> crimes. For example, some software which rips CDs include EULAs that
> prohibit the use for d
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
No. For example, even with GPL, it's normal for people to insist that
their software is not being released for purposes of helping commit
crimes. For example, some software which rips CDs include EULAs t
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:55AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:28:43AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> No. For example, even with GPL, it's normal for people to insist that
>>> their software is not being released for purposes of helping
Everyone,
Maybe as a compromise, Mozilla (Firefox) could tie the pop-up to the
first use of the security feature and not to the start of the application.
This way distributions that didn't want the pop-up could disable the
features in the default configuration before firefox starts. And when
the
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:55AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
For instance, a license that says:
"you may not use this software for larceny"
*IS*NOT* Free Software.
Then ISTM that whoever releases software which patently
could be used for criminal purpose
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:53:40AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:55AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
For instance, a license that says:
"you may not use this software for larceny"
*IS*NOT* Free Software.
>>> Then ISTM
O> IANAL, however, this doesn't sound right. I can GPL my stuff,
> and still have a EULA. I just have to be willing to supply source.
You can have an EULA providing it doesn't conflict with the GPL (and
local law). That makes the EULA for the code rather limited in what it
can contain 8)
> Most s
On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Steve Hill wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
If you do not agree to the GPL, you have no license at all, and
the only thing that allows you to use the software in any way is
fair use. Fair use does not necessarily cover running the software.
Certa
Around 02:07pm on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 (UK time), Joel Rees scrawled:
>
> On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:55 PM, Steve Hill wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> >>If you do not agree to the GPL, you have no license at all, and
> >>the only thing that allows you to use the so
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
That would be, I'm assuming, that you have bought the product and have some
sort of license thereby to use it?
If you have acquired a product (e.g. bought it from a shop, downloaded it,
etc) then you do not need a licence to use it. I don't have to agree
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:13:50PM +0100, Steve Searle wrote:
> Yes I agree with this. IANAL, or an expert in licening or GNU, but
> AFAIK the GNU licence covers re-distribution, not running. In other
> words anyone can run in without having to agree to any conditions. But
> if you want to re-di
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:53:43 -0400,
Tom spot Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:45 +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the problem... Steve hasn't actually seen how the EULA
> > > situation for FF3 is handled in F
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has the advantage of giving the same appearance whether or not you
> are connected to the internet when you first run it after an update. And
> it does not give the appearance of suripsticiously tracking installs by
Arthur Pemberton gmail.com> writes:
> I still haven't found out how to disable this feature myself. It
> really should be off by the default.
As the EULA replacement page says:
> If you do not agree to these terms, do not use the Services and disable the
> Services in Edit > Preferences > Securit
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:41 +, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I'd recommend that everyone disable those options if they value their
> privacy.
> Or just switch to a sane browser, such as Konqueror. It's really
> outrageous
> that this kind of "phoning home" is tolerated in Free Software.
"Phoning hom
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arthur Pemberton gmail.com> writes:
>> I still haven't found out how to disable this feature myself. It
>> really should be off by the default.
>
> As the EULA replacement page says:
>> If you do not agree to these terms, d
> > I'd recommend that everyone disable those options
> if they value their privacy.
> > Or just switch to a sane browser, such as Konqueror.
> It's really outrageous
> > that this kind of "phoning home" is
> tolerated in Free Software.
>
Very much agree!!!, I use firefox on rawhide now, but I have
Antonio Olivares yahoo.com> writes:
> On konqueror, I like konqueror, but It does not give me the ability to use
> the agent switcher like it did before (KDE 3.5.9).
The UA switcher is in the konq-plugins package. (I tested it in 4.1.0, it works
fine.)
> Settings --> Configure Konqueror --> Web
> I'd recommend that everyone disable those options if they value their
> privacy.
> Or just switch to a sane browser, such as Konqueror. It's really outrageous
> that this kind of "phoning home" is tolerated in Free Software.
You should probably also disable yum updates as well theen as that a
> "Phoning home" has a legitimate purpose, and has nothing to do with the
> freedom or otherwise of the software. What is intolerable, as Arthur
> says, is that it should be turned on by default, but even that isn't a
> licensing issue but a privacy one.
There I agree entirely - it should present
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:29 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> What is intolerable, as Arthur says, is that it should be turned on by
> default, but even that isn't a licensing issue but a privacy one.
Ever more, there's just cause for having a setup wizard for the first
run of the browser. Dis/
--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: FireFox 3 EULA
> To: fedora-list@redhat.com
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 9:24 PM
> Antonio Olivares yahoo.com>
> writes:
> > On k
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 19:39 +0930, Tim wrote:
> Ever more, there's just cause for having a setup wizard for the first
> run of the browser. Dis/enabling features like this, setting your
> language preferences (what can you read, what do you prefer, necessary
> for painless use of websites that do
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 08:07 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Fedora itself has a setup wizard (called Firstboot).
Which seems to skip one or two things that ought to be set at that time,
such as your locale/language.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -r
2.6.25.14-108.fc9.i686
Don't send private
Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:29 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
What is intolerable, as Arthur says, is that it should be turned on by
default, but even that isn't a licensing issue but a privacy one.
Ever more, there's just cause for having a setup wizard for the first
run of the bro
Steve Hill wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Joel Rees wrote:
That would be, I'm assuming, that you have bought the product and have
some sort of license thereby to use it?
If you have acquired a product (e.g. bought it from a shop, downloaded
it, etc) then you do not need a licence to use it. I
Tim:
>> Ever more, there's just cause for having a setup wizard for the first
>> run of the browser.
Mike McCarty:
> That's one way of doing it, and better than the current situation.
> However, that's not necessary.
Actually, I think it has become necessary, as many people do not
configure their
>
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080919113727960
--
This fortune intentionally not included.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuide
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Tim wrote:
setting your language preferences (what can you read, what do you
prefer, necessary for painless use of websites that do content
negotiation)
Should this not be a system wide setting rather than browser specific? It
isn't as if anyone would want their whole s
s.
I seem to recall that the option was less than successful at doing what
you'd hope it would. It was possible to have third party cookies get
through, even with that setting set. But my Firefox 3 does have an
option about third-party cookies, and I didn't hack anything to put it
into
Tim:
>> For instance, why would you want a website to disable your
>> right-click menus? That's just dumb.
Steve Hill:
> There are legitimate reasons in some cases - for example, Google Maps
> replaces the right-click menu with a context menu for the map itself
> rather than the standard browse
On Monday 22 September 2008 11:31:05 Steve Hill wrote:
> Should this not be a system wide setting rather than browser specific? It
> isn't as if anyone would want their whole system to be in German, except
> the browser which is set to French... (Although I don't think the current
> situation of
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Tim wrote:
On second thoughts, the above really isn't acceptable. Extra features
should be added to the existing right-click menu, not replacing it.
That may be, but I don't think there is actually any way to do that.
- Steve
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTE
I've noticed one annoying thing in the new firefox 3
while playing with fedora 10.
The https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/forms.html
remember password javascript bookmark no longer works.
I need it to disable the autocomplete=off that annoying
webmasters put in some forms and pas
on in your preferences.
Id had not such problems with the previous firefox-3 beta version and
RealPlayer-10
Any advice? All comments are welcome.
Regards
--
Joachim Backes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-li
Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
I have downloaded and installed Firefox 3 from the FC9 repo.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Anyone else seeing FF3GA crashing abruptly? I'm going to disable the
few plugins I have enabled and continue working. But I haven't added
any recently, and this just started today...
-Chris
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/list
Is that being planned at all? Or is F8 only supported in terms of
security patches & such?
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Horsley wrote:
> Anyone know a new way to make firefox 3 ignore
> autocomplete=off?
for firefox autocomplete functions, enter 'about:config' as address.
in 'filter:', enter 'autocomplete'. this will show y
Does anyone have a spec file suitable for running rpmbuild against a
Firefox 3 beta or release candidate tarball?
I've been trying to use the one I have that's worked with Firefox 2, but
it's stuck in the %build section, where it goes to run:
make -f client.mk build S
opened, because the associated helper
> application does not exist. Change the association in your preferences.
>
> Id had not such problems with the previous firefox-3 beta version and
> RealPlayer-10
>
> Any advice? All comments are welcome.
>
Gnome or KDE? If the latter, System
Hello Jim,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
> I have downloaded and installed Firefox 3 from the FC9 repo.
Discussed some hours ago, it's available from remi's repos, check the
ar
wwp wrote:
Hello Jim,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
I have downloaded and installed Firefox 3 from the FC9 repo.
Discussed some hours ago, it's available from remi's repos, ch
Hello Jim,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:26:29 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wwp wrote:
> > Hello Jim,
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the F
On Thursday 19 June 2008 23:26:29 Jim wrote:
> What was the name of Thread, do you remember ?
>A backport of F9 RPM is available on my little repo.
>
>http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2008/06/18/Firefox-3-Final
>Feel free to try it
>++
>
>P.S : FC6, F7 and F8, i386, x86
wwp wrote:
Hello Jim,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:26:29 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wwp wrote:
Hello Jim,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
I have downlo
Hello Jim,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
> >>> >>>> I have downloaded
t;>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> Is there going to be a Firefox 3 in the FC8 repos. ??
> >>>
> >>>> I have downloaded and instal
ecause the associated helper
application does not exist. Change the association in your preferences.
Id had not such problems with the previous firefox-3 beta version and
RealPlayer-10
Any advice? All comments are welcome.
Gnome or KDE? If the latter, System Settings > Advanced Tab > File
Ass
-0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> wwp wrote:
> > >> >>> Hello Jim,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:35:15 -0400 Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
Chris Bredesen wrote:
Anyone else seeing FF3GA crashing abruptly? I'm going to disable the
few plugins I have enabled and continue working. But I haven't added
any recently, and this just started today...
I did pull down OO.org 3 from rawhide, which brought with it a new
XULRunner, I wonder
It seems that with the change to firefox-3 on f9 I lost my emacs
keybindings. Firefox is back to using arrow keys (or soemsuch) for
motion commands. \C-a no longer takes me to the beginning of the
line, \C-b no longer takes me back one char, etc. This sucks pretty
badly. Google only finds the
Hi All,
My home network consists of a few workstations that NFS-mount my home
directory which is hosted on a central CentOS 5.2 server (clients use
use autofs). Ever since I installed F9, I have lost my bookmarks several
times, and it seems that my whole profile gets corrupted. I have tried
b
Konstantin Svist wrote:
Is that being planned at all?
No. Although the remi repository has it.
Or is F8 only supported in terms of
security patches & such?
Fedora 8 still gets some feature updates but Firefox 3 is considered too
invasive a change to be made in an update.
R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> Is that being planned at all? Or is F8 only supported in terms of
> security patches & such?
I was able to compile FF-3.0.1 for 64-bit Fedora8 using the Fedora9
src.rpm and a little tweaking. If you want to try them:
http:/
John Thompson wrote:
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> Is that being planned at all? Or is F8 only supported in terms of
> security patches & such?
I was able to compile FF-3.0.1 for 64-bit Fedora8 using the Fedora9
src.rpm and a little tweaking. If you want to try them:
http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Martin wrote:
| John Thompson wrote:
|
|> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
|> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
| Why use the rpm's at all? Why not just get it from Mozilla? If you
John Thompson wrote:
Kevin Martin wrote:
| John Thompson wrote:
|
|> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
|> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
| Why use the rpm's at all? Why not just get it from Mozilla? If you
| want the latest you n
> John Thompson wrote:
>> Konstantin Svist wrote:
>>
>> > Is that being planned at all? Or is F8 only supported in terms of
>> > security patches & such?
>>
>> I was able to compile FF-3.0.1 for 64-bit Fedora8 using the Fedora9
>> src.rpm and a little tweaking. If you want to try them:
>>
>> http:/
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 15:56 -0500, Kevin Martin wrote:
>
> John Thompson wrote:
> > Kevin Martin wrote:
> >
> > | John Thompson wrote:
> > |
> > |> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm
> > |> http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/RPMS/firefox-3.0.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
> >
> > | Why us
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:31:40 -0430
"Patrick O'Callaghan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which begs the question as to why the 64-bit one is what gets installed
> by default on 64-bit Fedora systems.
Actually, it raises the question. And the answer is probably because it's
easily possible to set u
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 04:07:16PM -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
>
> > Which begs the question as to why the 64-bit one is what gets installed
> > by default on 64-bit Fedora systems.
>
> Actually, it raises the question. And the answer is probably because it's
> easily possible to set up a 64-bit on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Burger wrote:
> FWIW, it's just as easy to get the SRPM for F9, and rpmbuild it on F8,
> which is what I've been doing.
That's what I do here. In fact, until last year I was running Fedora
Core 1 and keeping it up to date in that way. When the h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Martin wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't offer 64-bit builds of FF-3.x
> The 32bit builds won't run on 64bit machines? I'm not sure what you
> gain by running a 64bit build of FireFox (not that there's not something
> t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nifty Fedora Mitch wrote:
> The Firefox issue is interesting... since we depend on external plugins
> that are not open source and not 64 bit...
Isn't that what "nspluginwrapper" is for?
- --
John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 07:13:30PM -0500, John Thompson wrote:
>
> Nifty Fedora Mitch wrote:
>
> > The Firefox issue is interesting... since we depend on external plugins
> > that are not open source and not 64 bit...
>
> Isn't that what "nspluginwrapper" is for?
>
Yes...
when I tried 64bit b
Hi,
I'm having some problems with Firefox 3 on F9 and Sun's Java plugin.
Can anyone with this setup test the site:
https://secure.apligraf.com.br/webfeed/viptrade/grafico.php?popup=sim&papel=USIM5&estudo=ifr&indexador
And tell me what happens? Here, the area where a java
Entering "about:plugins" to the URL box in Firefox-3 produces the
message "No plugins are installed". Ditto for Tools->Add-ons->Plugins.
Also the main Firefox directory, /usr/lib64/firefox-3.0b5 (this machine
is an x86_64) has no plugins subdirectory.
So where does
Mike Burger wrote:
Does anyone have a spec file suitable for running rpmbuild against a
Firefox 3 beta or release candidate tarball?
On which distro-release ?
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> Mike Burger wrote:
>> Does anyone have a spec file suitable for running rpmbuild against a
>> Firefox 3 beta or release candidate tarball?
> On which distro-release ?
Fedora (5, 8, 9) doesn't really matter which release, though...I've been
using the same spec fil
Mike Burger wrote:
>
> Fedora (5, 8, 9) doesn't really matter which release, though...I've been
> using the same spec file to rebuild Firefox 2 on F5 and F6, prior to
> upgrading to F8 and/or F9...just edited the Firefox release specific info,
> and ran with it.
>
In most cases, you can take the
> Mike Burger wrote:
>>
>> Fedora (5, 8, 9) doesn't really matter which release, though...I've been
>> using the same spec file to rebuild Firefox 2 on F5 and F6, prior to
>> upgrading to F8 and/or F9...just edited the Firefox release specific
>> info,
>> and ran with it.
>>
>
> In most cases, you
Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In most cases, you can take the srpm package from the distro and then just
> > grab the new source and change the release version in the spec file. I
> > did that, however, this is what I get when trying to compile rc2. BTW -
> > there don't appe
This is new
http://fedoraproject.org/static/firefox/
I wonder what brought this on...
Scott
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems that with the change to firefox-3 on f9 I lost my emacs
> keybindings. Firefox is back to using arrow keys (or soemsuch) for
> motion commands. \C-a no longer takes me to the begin
"Reid Rivenburgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.mew.org/~kazu/proj/firemacs/
Thanks! That looks promising. For some reason I can't get it to use
the new keybindings. In fact, I can't figure out how to get to the
first configuration menu pictures on the above web page. (I can get
t
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 21:41 -0700, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> It seems that with the change to firefox-3 on f9 I lost my emacs
> keybindings. Firefox is back to using arrow keys (or soemsuch) for
> motion commands. \C-a no longer takes me to the beginning of the
> line, \C-b no
Chris Bredesen wrote:
Anyone else seeing FF3GA crashing abruptly? I'm going to disable the
few plugins I have enabled and continue working. But I haven't added
any recently, and this just started today...
I tracked this down to a rawhide version of libhunspell/enchant that
came down with a
Chris Stark wrote:
> While it would seem that soft linking my profile to a local folder would
> solve the issue, it would also mean that my profile would not follow me
> between workstations. Is there anything I can do?
I don't really understand your problem, but have you tried using foxmarks?
No
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 15:07 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Chris Stark wrote:
>
> > While it would seem that soft linking my profile to a local folder would
> > solve the issue, it would also mean that my profile would not follow me
> > between workstations. Is there anything I can do?
>
> I don'
On 03Jul2008 19:21, Chris Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While it would seem that soft linking my profile to a local folder would
> solve the issue, it would also mean that my profile would not follow me
> between workstations. Is there anything I can do?
You could run your firefox from a
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:21:43 -1000, Chris Stark wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My home network consists of a few workstations that NFS-mount my home
> directory which is hosted on a central CentOS 5.2 server (clients use
> use autofs). Ever since I installed F9, I have lost my bookmarks several
> times, an
FC8-i386, Kde, FireFox-3 .
Can't get "Send Link" in FF3 to open up Thunderbird as Email client.
FF3, Under Edit > Preferences > Applications the setting for "Mailto" is
Thunderbird Default.
I also have Gnome-Control-Center installed and default Mail is set to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having some problems with Firefox 3 on F9 and Sun's Java plugin.
> Can anyone with this setup test the site:
> https://secure.apligraf.com.br/webfeed/viptrade/grafico.php?popup=s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcelo Magno T. Sales wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having some problems with Firefox 3 on F9 and Sun's Java plugin.
> Can anyone with this setup test the site:
> https://secure.apligraf.com.br/webfeed/viptrade/grafico.php?popup=s
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo
