Re: APT testing and unstabe Firefox: can't find newest version from unstable
On Sun 05 Sep 2021 at 19:31:32 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
> > Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >Version 91 is only in experimental.
> > >
> >
> > Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
> > possible please get a flatpak and get on with your life. Debian is
> > providing that for a reason, too. We've been at the same point about a
> > year ago when on some mailing list it was suggested Debian should just
> > provide a flatpak. A joke of course, well I think it was. Still I
> > decided to actually give it a try and have been happily using two of
> > these since then, Firefox, and Chromium, which itself is too often
> > vulnerable in Sid. Perhaps in the future distributions should really
> > consider making do with, say, Firefox ESR and direct users who need
> > "more" to something anyone can sort of agree on and flock together,
> > that might well be avenues like Flatpak or AppImage. Container
> > solutions are certainly not the be-all and end-all but I don't see much
> > of a drawback for a case like this. You'll spend about a GiB extra,
> > it's basically pulling its own small userland, once. Command line use
> > needs some getting used to, kind of like systemd, hardly surprising if
> > you know where it's from. But easy enough, same with desktop
> > integration. There's no sane reason for using an outdated web browser
> > today. If you want or need to stay purist, there is always ESR.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
>
> This is the problem with web browsers getting bigger, more complex
> dependencies, more infrastructure complexities - and it has always
> been so. Web browsers are also the go-to applications for stress
> testing any machine once again.
There aren't any extensive problem with Firefox on buster and bullseye.
Mine works, reliably.
Maybe there are reports that say otherwise?
> Flatpaks and appimages are fine if they can be built - there's every
> chance that they, too witll be hit by this sort of thing at some
> point.
Why bother with what Debian does not provide by default.
--
Brian.
Reply to: