Package Details: firefox-beta-bin 133.0rc1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/firefox-beta-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: firefox-beta-bin
Description: Standalone web browser from mozilla.org - Beta
Upstream URL: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#beta
Keywords: gecko
Licenses: GPL, MPL, LGPL
Conflicts: firefox-beta
Provides: firefox
Submitter: Schnouki
Maintainer: symen (bittin)
Last Packager: bittin
Votes: 398
Popularity: 1.26
First Submitted: 2010-07-07 09:05 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-19 07:46 (UTC)

Dependencies (13)

Required by (167)

Sources (4)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .. 51 Next › Last »

Det commented on 2011-07-12 13:15 (UTC)

@sironitomas, you honestly didn't see the two posts right before yours? Also, a little Googling reveals this bug report filed upstream: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668997

sironitomas commented on 2011-07-12 12:50 (UTC)

While trying to open the preferences window in gnome3, Firefox crashes. This is the output: /opt/firefox-beta-bin-6.0b1/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libfile.so: undefined symbol: gnome_vfs_unescape_string Is this a Firefox bug or a packaging one?

axil42 commented on 2011-07-11 10:40 (UTC)

@Cdh yeap, I can confirm this...

haagch commented on 2011-07-10 08:14 (UTC)

When I try to open pdf files with an external program I get /opt/firefox-beta-bin-6.0b1/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libfile.so: undefined symbol: gnome_vfs_unescape_string Can anybody reproduce? Does it need a newer gnome-vfs?

axil42 commented on 2011-06-21 06:10 (UTC)

@Det I found the conversation! http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-March/014193.html You were right though, when no beta is available firefox-beta-bin should be updated to stable :)

Det commented on 2011-06-20 19:50 (UTC)

You mean this one?: "[aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?" - http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-March/014062.html The last mail there was mine and was the only one I sent. The other time I remember talking about this was in the 'virtualbox_bin_beta' comment section (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27339&comments=all). >Do you want to start a discussion in the mailing list? Concerning "a lot of packages concerning firefox in AUR that should not exist"? I guess I could but I'm not really interested for that matter :s.

axil42 commented on 2011-06-20 12:45 (UTC)

As far as you remember, you had pointed out the same issue in the mailing list and I think some TUs told us to go that way (in particular they told us that firefox-bin doesn't matter that exists). I have no reason to argue with you and it's very easy to update this package. However if someone wants the stable version they can easily grab it from the official repos eg. [testing]. A guy even created firefox-5-bin cause the maintainer of firefox-bin seems disappeared! Unfortunately there are a lot o packages concerning firefox in AUR that should not exist. Do you want to start a discussion in the mailing list?

Det commented on 2011-06-20 12:24 (UTC)

So in order to keep using the latest 'bleeding edge' version you need to switch between this and some separate stable release? That's not really the point in creating beta software. Could you give me one good reason as to why would you want to do that? Is there _any_ downside at all to use a stable version when the beta is out-of-date?

axil42 commented on 2011-06-20 11:59 (UTC)

This is the latest beta, so please don't flag it out of date. There is firefox-bin which builds from stable releases and of course there is firefox-5.0 in testing built with PGO enabled. Once there is a firefox6-beta flag it out of date.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .. 51 Next › Last »