Hi folks,
let's have some fun with upcoming Firefox 57 a.k.a Firefox Quantum. This is a major Firefox update with key - pleasant and unpleasant - changes:
- fastest than ever with Rust, CSS Stylo, Sandbox... - new "Photon" look - and disabled XUL extensions
according to the disruptive nature of the update which is planned to land in *all* Fedoras at Nov 14 I decided to put the update to the testing as soon as possible, which mean we have Firefox 57 Beta packages at update-testing right now.
If you don't consume update-testing regularly you can install Firefox only by:
# dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing firefox
and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2].
Thanks! ma.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
(See also the "IMPORTANT" box on this page: https://noscript.net/getit#devel)
Rich.
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
(See also the "IMPORTANT" box on this page: https://noscript.net/getit#devel)
Rich.
Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
Hi Martin,
Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using, the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.
Vít
On 11/06/2017 11:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
Hi Martin,
Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using, the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.
Unfortunately now, I have no idea how to enable it. ma.
Vít _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dne 6.11.2017 v 11:55 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 11/06/2017 11:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
Hi Martin,
Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using, the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.
Unfortunately now, I have no idea how to enable it. ma.
Thx, will stay with F56 for the foreseeable future ...
Vít
Hi, I'm using Firefox Quantum in both, Debian and Fedora, and works smoothly. Thanks!
2017-11-06 12:04 GMT+01:00 Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com:
Dne 6.11.2017 v 11:55 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 11/06/2017 11:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
- and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
Hi Martin,
Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using, the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.
Unfortunately now, I have no idea how to enable it. ma.
Thx, will stay with F56 for the foreseeable future ...
Vít _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus, HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages?
-- Ben
On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
Hi, I'm using Firefox Quantum in both, Debian and Fedora, and works smoothly. Thanks!
2017-11-06 12:04 GMT+01:00 Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com:
Dne 6.11.2017 v 11:55 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 11/06/2017 11:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > - and disabled XUL extensions
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.
Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in Fedora. Can we please enable that?
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable that for our test package.
ma.
Hi Martin,
Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using, the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.
Unfortunately now, I have no idea how to enable it. ma.
Thx, will stay with F56 for the foreseeable future ...
Vít _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:59 -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus, HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages?
Well, the alternative would be to update those packages and add them to the update.
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:59 -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus, HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages?
Well, the alternative would be to update those packages and add them to the update.
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
+1 - Yeah, especially with the current add-on situation in Firefox - much better for people to get updates from addons.mozilla.org - you'll get any updates much much faster there.
Noscript apparently didn't make the cut - so you'll need to pick an alternative or be patient. The developer is still working on it. AdBlockPlus and HTTPS Everywhere are available on the mozilla site. Another good alternative for adblock is uBlock Origin - you might want to give it a whirl.
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:55 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproj ect.org
wrote:
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
+1 - Yeah, especially with the current add-on situation in Firefox - much better for people to get updates from addons.mozilla.org - you'll get any updates much much faster there.
OK, but why are we packaging these addons at all if that is the answer? The situation right now is that we have packages that are broken by an update and a confusing situation for users who try to install those packages.
-- Ben
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreuter@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but why are we packaging these addons at all if that is the answer? The situation right now is that we have packages that are broken by an update and a confusing situation for users who try to install those packages.
First of all, not all addons are packaged. What most likely happened was a maintainer thought it would be a good idea to put a particular addon in Fedora repo so they went through the process to get it approved, etc.
AFAIK once a package is there, it's up to the particular maintainer to keep it up-to-date. If they don't, a proven packager may or may not step up to the task. There isn't a litmus test on whether or not a package "is worthy" - and I personally don't believe that would be appropriate anyway.
To be honest, I wasn't aware until recently that any addons had been packaged - and of the ones that are, I don't use any of them.
What you could do is open up a bugzilla for the addons which are causing an issue and request that they be updated or removed. The maintainer should have been aware of the webextension situation and taken the appropriate actions. It's not like this was a surprise.
On Friday, 17 November 2017 at 18:11, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreuter@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but why are we packaging these addons at all if that is the answer? The situation right now is that we have packages that are broken by an update and a confusing situation for users who try to install those packages.
First of all, not all addons are packaged. What most likely happened was a maintainer thought it would be a good idea to put a particular addon in Fedora repo so they went through the process to get it approved, etc.
Correct. I packaged or became co-maintainer of all the ones I use.
[...]
What you could do is open up a bugzilla for the addons which are causing an issue and request that they be updated or removed. The maintainer should have been aware of the webextension situation and taken the appropriate actions. It's not like this was a surprise.
What do you think the appropriate action is when FF57 is released but NoScript compatible with it isn't? Should I just block FF57 update and wait for the angry mob to show up at my door? It sucks, but even I think that geting FF57 out was more important than waiting to get FF57 out together a compatible NoScript version. I'll build an updated package when a new version is released. You're welcome to watch for updates and add karma in bodhi once the update is submitted.
Regards, Dominik (mozilla-noscript maintainer)
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
What do you think the appropriate action is when FF57 is released but NoScript compatible with it isn't? Should I just block FF57 update and wait for the angry mob to show up at my door? It sucks, but even I think that geting FF57 out was more important than waiting to get FF57 out together a compatible NoScript version. I'll build an updated package when a new version is released. You're welcome to watch for updates and add karma in bodhi once the update is submitted.
No, definitely don't block the Fx 57 update. A suggestion could be to:
1. Open a bugzilla ticket on mozilla-noscript explaining that at the moment it wasn't compatible with Fx 57+ 2. Temporarily modify the spec file so that it couldn't be installed with Fx 57+ referencing the bugzilla ticket in the comments
This would work for all extensions which aren't yet ready. When people checked bugzilla they'd see the reason and understand it was an upstream issue. They might not like it, but it is what it is.
On 11/16/2017 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
I personally like the idea of packaging addons, for the same reasons I like getting Firefox from Fedora rather than directly from Mozilla. Some example benefits are that it ensures the license is free (I don't know whether Mozilla enforces licenses to be free or not, but I assume they do not), and that the plugin came from known sources.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On 11/16/2017 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
I personally like the idea of packaging addons, for the same reasons I like getting Firefox from Fedora rather than directly from Mozilla. Some example benefits are that it ensures the license is free (I don't know whether Mozilla enforces licenses to be free or not, but I assume they do not), and that the plugin came from known sources.
You are correct that not all the addons have free licenses... Lastpass quickly comes to mind. Regarding known sources, mozilla does vet all the addons - so if you are getting them from mozilla.org they are from a known source.
If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should keep it up-to-date.
One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within bodhi for firefox itself. You should not hold the release of the browser hostage because addon xyz isn't functioning correctly. addons aren't core browser functionality.
On 11/17/2017 02:11 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
You are correct that not all the addons have free licenses... Lastpass quickly comes to mind. Regarding known sources, mozilla does vet all the addons - so if you are getting them from mozilla.org http://mozilla.org they are from a known source.
By known sources, I meant known source code, not known developer.
If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should keep it up-to-date.
One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within bodhi for firefox itself. You should not hold the release of the browser hostage because addon xyz isn't functioning correctly. addons aren't core browser functionality.
Agreed.
On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:11 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should keep it up-to-date.
One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within bodhi for firefox itself. You should not hold the release of the browser hostage because addon xyz isn't functioning correctly. addons aren't core browser functionality.
Again, why allow addons to be packaged at all if we are not prepared to block browser updates that break addons?
Alternatively, rather than block the updates, at least leave the last working version in the repository so that users can downgrade to something more recent. Right now it looks like F26 users can either accept Firefox 57 and live without their addons, or downgrade to 54; why not continue making 56 available for users who want it? As far as I know DNF is capable of handling such scenarios, although maybe there are other parts of the infrastructure that make this difficult.
In any case, maybe it is worth revisiting some of the relevant policies on Fedora packaging. This is not a Firefox-specific issue; GNOME, Emacs, etc. also have packaged addons.
-- Ben
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:01:32PM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Alternatively, rather than block the updates, at least leave the last working version in the repository so that users can downgrade to something more recent. Right now it looks like F26 users can either accept Firefox 57 and live without their addons, or downgrade to 54; why not continue making 56 available for users who want it? As far as I know DNF is capable of handling such scenarios, although maybe there are other parts of the infrastructure that make this difficult.
Should the Firefox 57 package Obsolete those add-on packages which it... makes obsolete?
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:01:32PM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Alternatively, rather than block the updates, at least leave the last working version in the repository so that users can downgrade to something more recent. Right now it looks like F26 users can either accept Firefox 57 and live without their addons, or downgrade to 54; why not continue making 56 available for users who want it? As far as I know DNF is capable of handling such scenarios, although maybe there are other parts of the infrastructure that make this difficult.
Should the Firefox 57 package Obsolete those add-on packages which it... makes obsolete?
I understand what you're saying there... but that puts the onus on the Firefox maintainer to keep track of people who decided to package addons. The respective maintainers of these addon packages need to step up and do what is required. This change has been 2 years in the making. If they maintained an addon package, they should have known.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Benjamin Kreuter ben.kreuter@gmail.com wrote:
Again, why allow addons to be packaged at all if we are not prepared to block browser updates that break addons?
I don't believe we should be in the business of determining which applications are worthy of packaging... if someone wants to do the work, more power to them.
Alternatively, rather than block the updates, at least leave the last working version in the repository so that users can downgrade to something more recent. Right now it looks like F26 users can either accept Firefox 57 and live without their addons, or downgrade to 54; why not continue making 56 available for users who want it? As far as I know DNF is capable of handling such scenarios, although maybe there are other parts of the infrastructure that make this difficult.
In any case, maybe it is worth revisiting some of the relevant policies on Fedora packaging. This is not a Firefox-specific issue; GNOME, Emacs, etc. also have packaged addons.
As far as browser updates "breaking" addons... you're inferring a "tail wagging the dog" scenario. That just isn't appropriate. Addons aren't core browser functionality. If they were, they wouldn't be addons. Same logic would apply to GNOME, etc.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:53:43 +0100, Randy Barlow wrote:
On 11/16/2017 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
I personally like the idea of packaging addons, for the same reasons I like getting Firefox from Fedora rather than directly from Mozilla. Some example benefits are that it ensures the license is free (I don't know whether Mozilla enforces licenses to be free or not, but I assume they do not), and that the plugin came from known sources.
And there is no warning if you click in firefox-57.0-2.fc27.x86_64 on any add-on that it is installing a non-Fedora-signed add-on.
(Then there is also "Update Add-ons Automatically" turned on by default but I could not verify whether it really applies on rpm-installed add-ons or not.)
Jan
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil@redhat.com wrote:
And there is no warning if you click in firefox-57.0-2.fc27.x86_64 on any add-on that it is installing a non-Fedora-signed add-on.
(Then there is also "Update Add-ons Automatically" turned on by default but I could not verify whether it really applies on rpm-installed add-ons or not.)
True, but in order to do that I believe you would have to write a patch to the core-browser. Not to mention the fact that Fedora has only a few add-ons packaged. I can't imagine the headache that would entail. At worse it would be needlessly alarming to users, at best it would be a nuisance.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:50:07PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like a silly idea. But oh well.)
It is useful to get the same addons in all profiles/users on a system and avoids the necessity to update them everywhere separately.
Kind regards Till
On 10/12/2017 09:57 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
Hi folks,
let's have some fun with upcoming Firefox 57 a.k.a Firefox Quantum. This is a major Firefox update with key - pleasant and unpleasant - changes:
- fastest than ever with Rust, CSS Stylo, Sandbox...
- new "Photon" look
- and disabled XUL extensions
Looks like the legacy addons still can be enabled by extensions.legacy.enabled pref at about:config [1].
Unfortunately that does not work for the Beta/Release we have at updates now. I'll try to enable it there but no promise.
ma.
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57
according to the disruptive nature of the update which is planned to land in *all* Fedoras at Nov 14 I decided to put the update to the testing as soon as possible, which mean we have Firefox 57 Beta packages at update-testing right now.
If you don't consume update-testing regularly you can install Firefox only by:
# dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing firefox
and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2].
Thanks! ma.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I don't have enough information for a proper bug report yet, but I observed the following:
I installed firefox 57 from u-t yesterday on a freshly installed F27 box, and hooked it up to my sync account. On a second machine, I have firefox-56.0-2.fc26.x86_64. After setting up sync on the new install, firefox started using 100% CPU. I let it run for 2-3h, then restarted it, and this continued. The sync spinner was spinning constantly. I tried to fiddle with the checkboxes which specify what to sync, and at some point sync finished and the CPU usage returned to normal.
But then the firefox on the other machine started hogging the CPU and syncing without end and even crashed, which normally doesn't happen. Dunno, maybe there's some incompatibility between FF56 and FF57.
Zbyszek
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2].
Hi Martin,
Do you want feedback in bodhi as well? And do you want to be notified about bugs filed upstream?
I noticed a rendering bug in Stylo, which I filed upstream (#1407690), but it turns out to be another case of #1391341, which won't be fixed in Firefox 57 and it's been marked as "fix-optional" for Firefox 58. However, until this is fixed, fedora wiki (among other websites) will look a bit messy to anyone using Firefox.
On 10/12/2017 11:16 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com wrote:
and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2].
Hi Martin,
Do you want feedback in bodhi as well?
Please use Red Hat bugzilla for Fedora specific issues (not present at official Mozilla FF57 build). Feedback in bodhi may be user for short notes.
And do you want to be notified about bugs filed upstream?
I noticed a rendering bug in Stylo, which I filed upstream (#1407690), but it turns out to be another case of #1391341, which won't be fixed in Firefox 57 and it's been marked as "fix-optional" for Firefox 58. However, until this is fixed, fedora wiki (among other websites) will look a bit messy to anyone using Firefox.
Yes, please CC me there.
Thanks, ma.
-
Adam Williamson -
Alexander Ploumistos -
Benjamin Kreuter -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Gerald B. Cox -
Jan Kratochvil -
Martin Stransky -
Matthew Miller -
Randy Barlow -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Silvia Sánchez -
Till Maas -
Vít Ondruch -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek