Beartooth wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:37:44 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
[....]
Need these things be?
Is there a way I've missed to make "yum update firefox" work? Is there hope it will in FC5 -- or even FC6?
"yum update firefox" works fine for me on FC4.
Is the problem that you are seeing that firefox is not being updated to version 1.5? The reason for that is that no official Fedora package for Firefox 1.5 on FC4 has been released (at least not yet). That's why yum doesn't pick it up.
Oho! and also aha! So there *is* hope; I kinda thunkit ... Many thanks! [....]
As for why there isn't a Firefox 1.5 upgrade for FC4, I don't know the answer.
Gee, and I'd've sworn I saw some ballyhoo weeks and weeks ago to the effect that 1.5 was a big security fix. Worse, I *thought* what I read said it wasn't for once just another MS problem, but something *in* Firefox. Maybe I better go on avoiding it a while yet. What I have is 1.0.7. Thanks!
Btw, in case the security hole does depend on MS -- is it worth installing a passel of extensions, and counting on 1.5 when it eventually appears to adopt and update them? If not, and if 1.5 is anywhere near the offing, I'll just wait, and do it after I get that. (I've been running that browser since about phoenix 0.4, and like it -- with lots of extensions; but I've had to go get them over again from scratch at least once, and life is too short to do it again without need.)
If there is a real security issue with firefox 1.0.x (I don't know if there is or not), I'd expect an FC4 update that either:
(a) updated to a later version that fixed the problem, or (b) included a backported fix in the existing version
The choice between the two largely depends on what the impact of a significant version upgrade would be on users/other applications that depend on the package. If there are significant plugin incompatibilities between firefox 1.0.x and 1.5.x then I'd expect the second option to be chosen if possible.
Paul.