basilisk-browser

[basti]

Hello,
please add basilisk-browser to debian repo.
I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.

More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/

Best Regards,

Re: basilisk-browser

[tomas]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:01:21AM +0200, basti wrote:
> Hello,
> please add basilisk-browser to debian repo.

Wrong list :-)

The right way to do it is to file a RFP (== "Request for Package")
bug. The Wiki [1] has more details on that.

If you (or someone else) is interested in that, there's a bit of
legwork you could do in advance:

 - Is it already packaged? (it doesn't seem so, as this search [2]
   suggests)
 - Is its license compatible with Debian's guidelines (DFSG) [3]?
 - Can you build/install it on your Debian box?

Feel free to add to this list :)

> I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> 
> More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/

Indeed, it does look good.

Cheers

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/RFP
[2] 
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=Basilisk&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
[3] https://www.debian.org/social_contract

-- tomas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: basilisk-browser

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> > 
> > More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
> 
> Indeed, it does look good.

No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].

Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?

Reco

[1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

Re: basilisk-browser

[tomas]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:49:44AM +0300, Reco wrote:
>   Hi.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> > > 
> > > More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
> > 
> > Indeed, it does look good.
> 
> No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
> Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].

Thanks for the link, very instructive.

That would mean (in the context of Debian) that one would have to
(a) use the Basilisk-bundled libs (generally a no-no in Debian)
or (b) use a different name & brand. Yes, we know this story with
Firefox/Iceweasel. That'd mean that the packaging effort would
be a bit... more interesting.

I think both sides have their point, and the sad part for me is
that they didn't manage to tackle the conflict in a more civil
manner. Perhaps a lesson in humility for us all.

> Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?

What the world needs (badly) is more browser alternatives. I'm
seeing everything converging towards the dystopia where one huge
corporation controls the server and the client. We had that, and
it wasn't pretty; nowadays with smartphones, always-on, IoT and
perhaps worse, we are far more vulnerable to that (business?) model.

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Micro-report: using Stable without systemd

[Morel Bérenger]

Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:02:23 -0400,
Gene Heskett  a écrit :

> On Wednesday 17 October 2018 05:38:38 Morel Bérenger wrote:
> 
> > Le Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:40:49 -0400,
> >
> > Gene Heskett  a écrit :  
> > > On Wednesday 17 October 2018 04:00:37 Morel Bérenger wrote:  
> > > > Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:37 -0400,
> > > >
> > > > Gene Heskett  a écrit :  
> > > > > On Tuesday 16 October 2018 13:11:45 Greg Wooledge wrote:  
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:43:40PM -0400, Gene Heskett
> > > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > > #1 is ssh -Y has been killed from jessie on. No excuse for
> > > > > > > doing it and bug filing is ignored.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know what you mean by this.  I just performed the
> > > > > > following experiment on my stretch workstation (wooledg), in
> > > > > > communications with a stretch server (arc3) elsewhere on our
> > > > > > network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Already logged into wooledg, I opened a new urxvt window.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) In this window, I typed: ssh -Y arc3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) After authenticating to arc3 with a password, at the
> > > > > > shell prompt, I typed: xterm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) After a moment, a new xterm window appeared on my
> > > > > > display.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Thats expected. Now enter synaptic-pkexec. It should ask you,
> > > > > if you are user 1000, for a passwd and given it, it will run.
> > > > > But after wheezy, its not possible. LinuxCNC's graphics needs
> > > > > are modest, and it will run, as the user. But its not root.
> > > > > And root is denied regardless of how you go about obtaining
> > > > > root permissions.  
> > > >
> > > > Also, I wonder if you tried to do that through, for example
> > > > Xephyr? Might workaround the issue you have?  
> > >
> > > Well I was just reminded that gksudo works. Now what the heck is
> > > Xephyr? Google says its x on x, whatever that means. I'll try to
> > > remember that and play with it if its available for wheezy &
> > > later.
> > >
> > > Thanks Morel Bérenger.  
> >
> > The ncurses mode of aptitude says Xephyr is a X server that can be
> > executed inside another X server, more or less like Xnest (or xming,
> > for people like me that had to work on a windows station but wanted
> > to keep a nice wm embedded on personal hardware ;)).
> >
> > I can not really explain how this works, but in short you could
> > consider a remote system providing the performances stuff (hard disk
> > space, strong CPU, tons or RAM...) and opening the X session on
> > local systems.
> > I think it might fix your problem because basically, su-programs
> > (probably PAM modules, in fact) do some security related checks to
> > avoid passwords to be sniffed by a client on another computer: which
> > is what I would expect a ssh -Y gksudo do.
> >
> > If my explanation is not clear (and I'm certain of it), it's
> > because I don't really master that side of systems, sorry for
> > that :)  
> 
> You at least, dug deep enough to see that pam was probably the guilty 
> party,

I have not dug, not even a minute. It's just that I've always played a
lot with my debians, and I started really using it when Lenny was
testing.
Playing with apt-pining, agetty alternatives and alike tends to teach
some stuff, especially when one starts to have some years of background
to compare.
You know, the month I started really using something different from
windows, I stopped spitting on that system, because I understood that
(most of) the crashes were not windows' fault but coders doing their
job the wrong way.
It's so easy to hit the 1st thing one can see.

> same conclusion I reached. Unforch, removing pam also pretty
> much nukes the whole system.

Building a PAM-less distro based on Debian would be quite the
challenge, for sure.
I intend to try, some day, just for fun (PAM might also be part of the
reason Xorg have to be started by root, on sysV, and since systemd
comes into the game, this might have allowed them this improvement. It
seems the *BSD guys are taking a very different approach, I must learn
how they do that, because loading as root a shared library just to
read 2 files (or ask a server) seems bad for both performance and
security to me).

But I do not think it's the smartest solution to fix an actual,
real-life problem.
PAM is basically a set of dynamic libraries, and in theory (never
played with it, the whole model as I know it seems disgusting to me) you
can configure it to use a "module" or another one to identify a user or
an application.
Maybe this would be easier than hacking the whole distro to remove PAM.

Re: basilisk-browser

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:16:54AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:49:44AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> > > > 
> > > > More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
> > > 
> > > Indeed, it does look good.
> > 
> > No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
> > Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].
> 
> Thanks for the link, very instructive.
> 
Yeah, that was ... something.

> That would mean (in the context of Debian) that one would have to
> (a) use the Basilisk-bundled libs (generally a no-no in Debian)
> or (b) use a different name & brand. Yes, we know this story with
> Firefox/Iceweasel. That'd mean that the packaging effort would
> be a bit... more interesting.
> 

The main distinction, however, was that in the Debian case, Mozilla
objected to the backporting of security-sepcific fixes and then
continuing to call the patched version "Firefox."  As I recall, all that
was before they started offering ESR builds, so every version of Firefox
was a quickly moving target with at most a few months of support.

Once the Firefox project started offering builds that made sense within
Debian's stable release process, the Iceweasel branding could be dropped
and builds could be included in Debian which both satisfied the needs of
patching security vulnerabilities and the upstream branding
requirements.

A project that says "you can't even change the build flags" strikes me
as not especially inclined to display the flexibility that Mozilla
eventually did.  In fact, since they are so concerned about "disastrous"
library combinations and insist on their bundled/patched versions being
used, I find it surprising that they do not specifically dictate which
compilers are authorized to create branded builds.

> I think both sides have their point, and the sad part for me is
> that they didn't manage to tackle the conflict in a more civil
> manner. Perhaps a lesson in humility for us all.
> 
Sadly, this sort of conflict seems to be increasing in frequency, rather
than decreasing.  I can think of two other large projects just in the
last two or so years that have been exceptionally hostile to downstream
packagers/maintainers.  So much so that the packagers/maintainers just
gave up.

What seems to be the impediment to civility and humility is that people
tend to become very emotionally invested in their work.  That
exaggerates very minor things to the point where there is a
disproportionate reaction from one side, which thusly triggers a
disproportionate reaction from the other side.  This then results in raw
emotions, public humiliation, etc.  Once the situation escalates like
that, it is difficult to diffuse and return a reasonable and collegial
discussion where the (usually very minor) root issue can be identified
and dealt with.

> > Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?
> 
> What the world needs (badly) is more browser alternatives. I'm
> seeing everything converging towards the dystopia where one huge
> corporation controls the server and the client. We had that, and
> it wasn't pretty; nowadays with smartphones, always-on, IoT and
> perhaps worse, we are far more vulnerable to that (business?) model.
> 
I agree.  I have already begun encountering sites which behave badly in
Firefox, requiring me to switch to Chromium (and in case Chrome itself,
uggh).  I definitely do not want to return to the bad old days where
most websites had something like "Best viewed in Internet Explorer 5.5+"
on every page :-(

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: basilisk-browser

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 08:40:51AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > That would mean (in the context of Debian) that one would have to
> > (a) use the Basilisk-bundled libs (generally a no-no in Debian)
> > or (b) use a different name & brand. Yes, we know this story with
> > Firefox/Iceweasel. That'd mean that the packaging effort would
> > be a bit... more interesting.
> 
> The main distinction, however, was that in the Debian case, Mozilla
> objected to the backporting of security-sepcific fixes and then
> continuing to call the patched version "Firefox."  As I recall, all that
> was before they started offering ESR builds, so every version of Firefox
> was a quickly moving target with at most a few months of support.

It still is, for me at least.
I miss old days where they gave me one Iceweasel version for the
duration of stable release.


> Once the Firefox project started offering builds that made sense within
> Debian's stable release process, the Iceweasel branding could be dropped
> and builds could be included in Debian which both satisfied the needs of
> patching security vulnerabilities and the upstream branding
> requirements.

If only Debian project did something about Firefox privacy settings.
Let's face it - Mozilla are hypocrites. They loudly 'care about users'
privacy', but then force their 'opt-out telemetry' on you.
Debian's Firefox build disables some of the offending settings by
default, but not all of them.
At least at Google they are honest enough to say - 'we will spy on you
and we do not give a f*** about your option'.


> A project that says "you can't even change the build flags" strikes me
> as not especially inclined to display the flexibility that Mozilla
> eventually did.

Moreover, a project is x86-only. How exactly such upstream will react to
patches that, for example, fix segfault/sigill on armhf?


> In fact, since they are so concerned about "disastrous"
> library combinations and insist on their bundled/patched versions being
> used, I find it surprising that they do not specifically dictate which
> compilers are authorized to create branded builds.

Careful, they might be reading this ;)


> > > Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?
> > 
> > What the world needs (badly) is more browser alternatives. I'm
> > seeing everything converging towards the dystopia where one huge
> > corporation controls the server and the client. We had that, and
> > it wasn't pretty; nowadays with smartphones, always-on, IoT and
> > perhaps worse, we are far more vulnerable to that (business?) model.
> > 
> I agree.  I have already begun encountering sites which behave badly in
> Firefox, requiring me to switch to Chromium (and in case Chrome itself,
> uggh).  I definitely do not want to return to the bad old days where
> most websites had something like "Best viewed in Internet Explorer 5.5+"
> on every page :-(

It's happened already. The catch there is that you need Chrome to
display that 'best viewed in' badge.

Reco

Re: No Java in Eclipse Preferences

[Kent West]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:39 PM Roberto C. Sánchez 
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:28:55PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> >westk@westkent64:~$
> >i A eclipse-jdt - Eclipse Java Development Tools (JDT)
> >i A eclipse-pde - Eclipse Plug-in Development Environment (PDE)
> >i A eclipse-platform - Eclipse platform without development plug-ins
> >i A eclipse-platform-data - Eclipse platform without development
> plug-ins
> >(data)
> (SNIP)
> >westk@westkent64:~$ java --version
> >openjdk 11 2018-09-25
> >OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 11+28-Debian-3)
> >OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 11+28-Debian-3, mixed mode, sharing)
> >Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Kent,
>
> The Eclipse JDT package in Sid (version 3.8) came out nearly 6.5 years
> ago!  I doubt it if it will work with Java 11 and I would even be
> surprised if it worked with Java 8.
>
> Sadly, Eclipse is one piece of software that I have just never been able
> to find a satisfactory setup based on Debian packages.  I recommend you
> download the binary tarball from upstream, untar it in /opt and work
> with it from there.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>
> --
> Roberto C. Sánchez
>
>

Thanks for your response, Roberto. That helps. I purged all I could find of
Eclipse, and then downloaded their installer from the eclipse.org website,
and then their "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers", and with a little
trial-and-error (their tutorial was a bit unclear), got a working "Hello,
World" program.

It's a start.

I do feel a little tainted, going outside of the Debian repositories for
software. But I understand that in the world of Free Software, there's not
always a volunteer available to maintain a package.

This moves me forward. Thanks!


-- 
Kent West<")))><
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: basilisk-browser

[basti]

On 18.10.2018 16:29, Reco wrote:
> If only Debian project did something about Firefox privacy settings.
> Let's face it - Mozilla are hypocrites. They loudly 'care about users'
> privacy', but then force their 'opt-out telemetry' on you.
> Debian's Firefox build disables some of the offending settings by
> default, but not all of them.
> At least at Google they are honest enough to say - 'we will spy on you
> and we do not give a f*** about your option'.

Perhaps Waterfox find the way into re repo.
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885405)

Waterfox differs from Firefox in a number of ways by:

Disabling Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
Disabling Web Runtime
Removing Adobe DRM
Removing Pocket
Removing Telemetry
Removing data collection
Removing startup profiling
Allowing running of all 64-bit NPAPI plugins
Allowing running of unsigned extensions
Removing of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
Addition of locale selector in about:preferences > General
Defaulting to Bing as the search engine instead of Ecosia, Google or
Yahoo![7]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox)

Re: basilisk-browser

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:53:19PM +0200, basti wrote:
> On 18.10.2018 16:29, Reco wrote:
> > If only Debian project did something about Firefox privacy settings.
> > Let's face it - Mozilla are hypocrites. They loudly 'care about users'
> > privacy', but then force their 'opt-out telemetry' on you.
> > Debian's Firefox build disables some of the offending settings by
> > default, but not all of them.
> > At least at Google they are honest enough to say - 'we will spy on you
> > and we do not give a f*** about your option'.
> 
> Perhaps Waterfox find the way into re repo.
> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885405)
> 
> Waterfox differs from Firefox in a number of ways by:
> 
> Disabling Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
> Disabling Web Runtime
> Removing Adobe DRM
> Removing Pocket
> Removing Telemetry
> Removing data collection
> Removing startup profiling
> Allowing running of all 64-bit NPAPI plugins
> Allowing running of unsigned extensions
> Removing of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
> Addition of locale selector in about:preferences > General
> Defaulting to Bing as the search engine instead of Ecosia, Google or
> Yahoo![7]
> 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox)

Too low aim, IMO. And how exactly M$ services are better for privacy
than Google's is anyone's guess.
Tor Browser (friendly upstream included) looking better here, especially
in the light of the fact that Tor Project builds Tor Browser for Debian
stable.

Reco

Re: No Java in Eclipse Preferences

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:48:54AM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> 
>Thanks for your response, Roberto. That helps. I purged all I could find
>of Eclipse, and then downloaded their installer from the [2]eclipse.org
>website, and then their "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers", and with a
>little trial-and-error (their tutorial was a bit unclear), got a working
>"Hello, World" program.
>It's a start.

I am glad you were able to get it working.  If you haven't found this
site already, let me make a recommendation:

http://www.vogella.com/tutorials/

The author runs a company around Java and Eclipse development/consulting
and his tutorials are top notch.  I recommend them to my students when
they are struggling with some of the advanced IDE features.

>I do feel a little tainted, going outside of the Debian repositories for
>software. But I understand that in the world of Free Software, there's not
>always a volunteer available to maintain a package.
>This moves me forward. Thanks!

I agree.  The conclusion that I have reached is that some "applications"
that are really highly complex software ecosystems do not really lend
themselves to the Debian packaging model.

Perhaps if there was a barebones type of package that you could install
with the ability to install additional compnents through the package
manager but then also the ability to install packages that override
those (like you might do with Python's PIP, CPAN, and so on).  However,
even that has its problems.

Perhaps we will get there at some point.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: No Java in Eclipse Preferences

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 19/10/2018 03:48, Kent West wrote:

I do feel a little tainted, going outside of the Debian repositories for
software. But I understand that in the world of Free Software, there's not
always a volunteer available to maintain a package.


Fear not. The Eclipse Foundation has fine Open Source credentials.

I use Debian OpenJDK packages but applications like Eclipse and Maven I 
install from tarballs and run with wrapper scripts so I can choose JDK 
versions. In the Java ecosystem it seems much more common to bundle 
dependencies with applications. This is quite different to the Debian 
way of doing things, and untangling these dependencies seems to have 
been an insurmountable obstacle to Debian packaging. I am not saying 
that it cannot be done, just that the cost is sufficient to prevent it 
with the amount of available developer interest.


I have found Debian to be a good platform for Java development.

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Migrating Debian installation to a new motherboard

[local10]

Hi,

Am looking for an easy way to move my Debian PC to a new motherboard, that is 
without reinstalling all the packages and config settings. All the hardware 
with the exception of the motherboard will remain the same, I have a spare hard 
drive, the same model as my working HD, which I can use as a setup area if 
needed. I did a similar migration with success some years back and used the 
"Shockingly easy server upgrade" writeup from Debian Planet as guide, which was 
available at http://www.debianplanet.org/node.php?id=875 
 but it's no longer there and I 
can't find it.

Any ideas? Thanks

Re: basilisk-browser

[Doug]

On 10/18/2018 04:49 AM, Reco wrote:

Hi.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.

More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/

Indeed, it does look good.

No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].

Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?

Reco

[1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86



I would like to know what you mean by "extremely hostile upstream"--
I have been using PaleMoon Browser for several years and I like it.
Unlike Firefox, it doesn't change its stripes every few weeks. I am
happy with an app that retains its interface for years and years and
doesn't mess with my head. YMMV.
--doug

Re: basilisk-browser

[John Crawley]

On 18/10/2018 18.16, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

What the world needs (badly) is more browser alternatives. I'm
seeing everything converging towards the dystopia where one huge
corporation controls the server and the client. We had that, and
it wasn't pretty; nowadays with smartphones, always-on, IoT and
perhaps worse, we are far more vulnerable to that (business?) model.


Have to sadly agree. Corporate unification has already been accomplished 
in the post-PC world of touchpads, but now on Debian we essentially have 
the choice of Firefox or Chromium. Nothing else looks safe. The modern 
web is so complicated that maintaining security patches for a browser is 
no longer something that small teams of enthusiastic amateurs can 
handle, IMO.


--
John

Re: No Java in Eclipse Preferences

[Francois Papon]

Hi,

I've used Eclipse in the past (IDEA for now) and Debian is the best OS
for Java development for me :)

The installation is pretty easy, you just have to download the tarball :

https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/packages/

You can choose the pre-package according to your language/usage.

The update and plugins can be managed directly in the Eclipse menu. You
can also configure several JDK for your projects.

For me it's not necessary to have a Debian package to use Eclipse.

regards,

François Papon
fpa...@apache.org

Le 19/10/2018 à 01:10, Ben Caradoc-Davies a écrit :
> On 19/10/2018 03:48, Kent West wrote:
>> I do feel a little tainted, going outside of the Debian repositories for
>> software. But I understand that in the world of Free Software,
>> there's not
>> always a volunteer available to maintain a package.
>
> Fear not. The Eclipse Foundation has fine Open Source credentials.
>
> I use Debian OpenJDK packages but applications like Eclipse and Maven
> I install from tarballs and run with wrapper scripts so I can choose
> JDK versions. In the Java ecosystem it seems much more common to
> bundle dependencies with applications. This is quite different to the
> Debian way of doing things, and untangling these dependencies seems to
> have been an insurmountable obstacle to Debian packaging. I am not
> saying that it cannot be done, just that the cost is sufficient to
> prevent it with the amount of available developer interest.
>
> I have found Debian to be a good platform for Java development.
>
> Kind regards,
>

Re: basilisk-browser

[Ben Finney]

Doug  writes:

> On 10/18/2018 04:49 AM, Reco wrote:
> > Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
> >
> I would like to know what you mean by "extremely hostile upstream"

Reco anticipated your wish to know, and provided a concrete example of
the hostility. Did you read the discussion at that URL?

-- 
 \“[T]he great menace to progress is not ignorance but the |
  `\   illusion of knowledge.” —Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, |
_o__)1914–2004 |
Ben Finney

Re: basilisk-browser

[Reco]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:13:20PM -0400, Doug wrote:
> 
> On 10/18/2018 04:49 AM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02:42AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > I think its an good alternative to Firefox Quantum.
> > > > 
> > > > More Infos here: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
> > > Indeed, it does look good.
> > No, it does not. UXP means Palemoon Browser.
> > Palemoon means extremely hostile upstream - [1].
> > 
> > Does Debian project really needs yet another Iceweasel incident?
> > 
> > Reco
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
> > 
> > 
> I would like to know what you mean by "extremely hostile upstream"--
> I have been using PaleMoon Browser for several years and I like it.

Please note that I haven't qualified the browser itself.
Using Palemoon is OK for the upstream. More users = more recognition.
If it works for you - more power to you.


> Unlike Firefox, it doesn't change its stripes every few weeks. I am
> happy with an app that retains its interface for years and years and
> doesn't mess with my head. YMMV.

But, in this particular thread Palemoon or Basilisk qualities are not
relevant, as this discussion is about the possible inclusion of these
fine browsers into Debian main archive.

And for such inclusion certain criteria must be met, and one of those
is the ability to build the browser from the source the way that
maintainer sees fit. Upstream opposes that, see the link above.

Reco

Re: basilisk-browser

[Dominik George]

>> > [1] https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

Seriously? They forbid linking against libraries if their code is not shipped 
with their sources?

That also seems like a security nightmare in the making.

Mozilla themselves weren't even *that* ridiculous, were they?

-nik