On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 12:49 -0700, Todd And Margo Chester wrote: > The one my provider provides is way out of date and, arguably because > of it, a security hazard.
Not sure what your provider is, but mine is Red Hat and I am not aware of known security risks in Firefox RPMs they are shipping. If there are such risks they should be let known to them, so that they are patched. > The problem with Mozilla.org's binary is that it is looking at the 32 > bit location for the plugins and not the 64 bit location. It is a > bug. Not really, they just assume that on a 64-bit Linux system the libraries are in /usr/lib, which does not hold true for Red Hat because of the multiarch implementation that they are using, but might indeed hold true for some other distributions (i.e. those that do not have multiarch support at all). > Other than that, I am throughly confused as to your point. Maybe I > am missing something. I guess his point was that you should build your own RPMs if you desperately need latest Firefox, using binary releases from Mozilla is not the best option, although they might work to a certain extent. Apart from multiarch, there are other more subtle issues with their "one size fits all distros" binaries, i.e. last time I checked they were using their own freetype, instead of relying on the system one, which resulted in rendering artifacts on some systems etc. -- Sincerely yours, Yury V. Zaytsev _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
