Package Details: firefox-nightly 132.0a1+20240927.1+h79ef00c1355d-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/firefox-nightly.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: firefox-nightly
Description: Fast, Private & Safe Web Browser (Nightly version)
Upstream URL: https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/channel/desktop/#nightly
Keywords: browser gecko web
Licenses: MPL-2.0
Submitter: None
Maintainer: heftig
Last Packager: heftig
Votes: 610
Popularity: 0.41
First Submitted: 2008-09-10 14:23 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-09-27 20:33 (UTC)

Sources (5)

Pinned Comments

heftig commented on 2022-07-27 22:26 (UTC)

Instead of building this yourself, please use the repository from https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157.

Not only do you skip the very time-consuming builds, but the published package also has debug symbols at Mozilla's crash reports service, which helps tremendously with finding or filing bugs for any crashes you get.

I consider this the canonical firefox-nightly package for Arch Linux.

[heftig]
SigLevel = Optional
Server = https://pkgbuild.com/~heftig/repo/$arch

Alternatively, download Firefox Nightly straight from Mozilla, extract it to a writable place (e.g. ~/.local/firefox-nightly) and let it update itself using the integrated updater.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next › Last »

xenom commented on 2011-01-12 18:08 (UTC)

Sorry. Usually I read the comments, but the last I was very busy, personally and professionally. Thank you for the comment and the PKGBUILD. I updated the PKGBUILD with the first version of the Det's package. For the second version, i like the sha512sum hack idea, but I prefer that the user make this manually. I'm open to change, if many people (with arguments) prefer the sha512sum, i can change this. @Det : I have added your name as Contributor, because you wrote the new PKGBUILD.Send me an email if you want that I delete or change something on this line.

cgirard commented on 2011-01-12 14:37 (UTC)

Thanks ;)

Det commented on 2011-01-12 13:54 (UTC)

He wouldn't be the only one :). I just mailed him.

cgirard commented on 2011-01-12 09:15 (UTC)

@xenom : do you happen to read the comments sometimes ?

Det commented on 2011-01-11 20:15 (UTC)

b10_pre_

Xabre commented on 2011-01-11 17:28 (UTC)

b10 is out

cgirard commented on 2011-01-05 15:12 (UTC)

I've just tested it and yes, it does not, as expected. The thing is I have asked xenom to add the "-N" option to wget to be able to be able to detect when the file has been changed on the server side. With your sha512sum hack, we do detect it but we need to manually delete the old source file. I understand that having these wget, bsdtar and sha512sum is not really elegant, but at the end of the day the same operations are done ? Aren't they ? @xenom: what do you think about this ? Either way a solution has to be taken because right now the PKGBUILD package the wrong file (download a file and package an older one already there).

Det commented on 2010-12-30 19:16 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Well, I don't think it does. It just says that the checksum failed. But really, since a new trunk build for Firefox is released _daily_ and not like every 10 minutes (as with Chromium), it's good enough. I don't think there's even a way to trick makepkg e.g. to manually check whether the tarball passed the sha512sum check and if it wouldn't it would be replaced with a new one. That won't work because the sha512sum check is done _before_ the "build()" and "package()" functions are executed, meaning.. well, that it just wouldn't work. I(ns)t(ead) _could_ be done that the tarball would *manually* be downloaded and then *manually* checked against the sha512sum in "http://ftp.mozilla.org" but that's just... stupid, if you ask me. The maintainer can choose to do that if he wishes to but I couldn't bring myself to care for that matter even if my life depended on it (just kidding).

cgirard commented on 2010-12-30 18:35 (UTC)

No what I meant is : does makepkg download a new copy of the file if an older version is already downloaded ?

Det commented on 2010-12-30 18:23 (UTC)

Yes it would. But if you look at the upload times you notice that the files are uploaded at the same time. To avoid exactly that.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next › Last »