241104 Wols Lists wrote:
> On 01/11/2024 17:50, Michael wrote:
>> ... I understand clang is recommended upstream
>> and therefore was set as a default flag.
>> However, a rust Vs rust-bin version clash can occur
>> and since FF patched their code to work with gcc,
>> setting clang as the default c
On 01/11/2024 17:50, Michael wrote:
Thanks! From what I read briefly, I understand clang is recommended upstream
and therefore was set as a default flag. However, a rust Vs rust-bin version
clash can occur and since FF patched their code to work with gcc, setting
clang as the default compiler i
I sent my previous reply before seeing this, and I have still not
received Marco's message, which explains thing better then I did.
On 2024.11.01 13:50, Michael wrote:
On Friday 1 November 2024 17:00:20 GMT Marco Rebhan wrote:
> On Friday, 1 November 2024 17:41:25 CET Michael wrote:
> > Withou
On 2024.11.01 12:41, Michael wrote:
On Friday 1 November 2024 14:43:17 GMT Jack Ostroff wrote:
> On 11/1/24 7:15 AM, Michael wrote:
> > Any idea why clang was disabled in www-client/firefox-128.4.0:
> >
> > [ebuild U ] www-client/firefox-128.4.0:esr::gentoo
> > [128.3.1:esr::gentoo] USE="X d
On Friday 1 November 2024 17:00:20 GMT Marco Rebhan wrote:
> On Friday, 1 November 2024 17:41:25 CET Michael wrote:
> > Without USE="clang" the emerge takes 12-18% longer, but I am not sure what
> > is the recommended compiler for FF or why it was changed.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.
On Friday 1 November 2024 14:43:17 GMT Jack Ostroff wrote:
> On 11/1/24 7:15 AM, Michael wrote:
> > Any idea why clang was disabled in www-client/firefox-128.4.0:
> >
> > [ebuild U ] www-client/firefox-128.4.0:esr::gentoo
> > [128.3.1:esr::gentoo] USE="X dbus gmp-autoupdate hwaccel jumbo-buil
On Friday, 1 November 2024 17:41:25 CET Michael wrote:
> Without USE="clang" the emerge takes 12-18% longer, but I am not sure what
> is the recommended compiler for FF or why it was changed.
Hi Michael,
https://bugs.gentoo.org/941878 seems to be the relevant bug with discussion on
why it was ch
On 11/1/24 7:15 AM, Michael wrote:
Any idea why clang was disabled in www-client/firefox-128.4.0:
[ebuild U ] www-client/firefox-128.4.0:esr::gentoo [128.3.1:esr::gentoo]
USE="X dbus gmp-autoupdate hwaccel jumbo-build openh264 system-av1 system-
harfbuzz system-icu system-jpeg system-libeve
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 23:04:56 GMT Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 12:30:51PM +, Michael wrote
>
> > I haven't yet given Palemoon a spin and consequently have no
> > experience of it. How does it compare to FF? I am curious as to
> > security and performance comparisons.
>
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 12:30:51PM +, Michael wrote
> I haven't yet given Palemoon a spin and consequently have no
> experience of it. How does it compare to FF? I am curious as to
> security and performance comparisons.
It's kept updated regularly for security. See
http://www.palemoon.o
On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 20:59:53 GMT Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 07:12:35PM +0100, n952162 wrote
>
> > On 2020-03-04 17:14, Daniel Frey wrote:
> > > It will go away but allowing Firefox to self-update on Gentoo will get
> > > you a very broken Firefox as the ebuilds have gone a
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 07:12:35PM +0100, n952162 wrote
> On 2020-03-04 17:14, Daniel Frey wrote:
> >
> > It will go away but allowing Firefox to self-update on Gentoo will get
> > you a very broken Firefox as the ebuilds have gone away from large
> > monolithic builds to linking to local system li
On 2020-03-04 17:14, Daniel Frey wrote:
On 3/4/20 12:14 AM, n952162 wrote:
Yes, you're right:
01~>cat /usr/lib64/firefox/distribution/policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true
}
}
The prediction is, if I were to remove that file, the banner would go
away. I'll try that
On 3/4/20 12:14 AM, n952162 wrote:
Yes, you're right:
01~>cat /usr/lib64/firefox/distribution/policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true
}
}
The prediction is, if I were to remove that file, the banner would go
away. I'll try that at some point.
Thank you.
It will g
On 2020-03-04 09:06, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 03/03/2020 00:16, n952162 wrote:
I have a banner that says that "your browser is being managed by your
organization". Oh yeah? I guess that would be gentoo. How can I break
that relationship?
I use firefox-bin and this:
qlist firefox-bin |
On 03/03/2020 00:16, n952162 wrote:
I have a banner that says that "your browser is being managed by your
organization". Oh yeah? I guess that would be gentoo. How can I break
that relationship?
I use firefox-bin and this:
qlist firefox-bin | grep json
reveals that the ebuild installs:
Mick schrieb am 18.09.19 um 11:47:
> On Monday, 16 September 2019 17:55:45 BST Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>
>> What fixed the issue for me was deleting the files addons.json and
>> addonStartup.json.lz4. As well as addons.sqlite which is superseded by
>> addons.json anyway.
>>
>> After this firefox s
On Monday, 16 September 2019 17:55:45 BST Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> What fixed the issue for me was deleting the files addons.json and
> addonStartup.json.lz4. As well as addons.sqlite which is superseded by
> addons.json anyway.
>
> After this firefox started fine. Having had problems with addon
On 9/17/19 2:23 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:20:40AM -0400, james wrote
So I want a newer verision of Palemoon, but do not find any sort of
discussion on why we (gentoo) are back at 28.3.0? Is there an overlay
with more recent palemoon releases for gentoo, that I'm missing?
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:20:40AM -0400, james wrote
> So I want a newer verision of Palemoon, but do not find any sort of
> discussion on why we (gentoo) are back at 28.3.0? Is there an overlay
> with more recent palemoon releases for gentoo, that I'm missing?
I don't use the overlay. I pre
james wrote:
> On 9/16/19 3:49 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
>> It'll be interesting to see if any stability issues come up. I run
>> homebrew builds of Pale Moon, so I won't be affected.
>>
>
> Hello Walter,
>
> I currently run palemoon-28.3.0
>
> There has been quite a few releases (tweeks) since
On 9/16/19 3:49 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if any stability issues come up. I run
homebrew builds of Pale Moon, so I won't be affected.
Hello Walter,
I currently run palemoon-28.3.0
There has been quite a few releases (tweeks) since then, just not
updated to por
On Monday, 16 September 2019 17:55:45 BST Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> On my system firefox started fine for the first time after the update
> but I was only able to get it running in safe mode for subsequent starts.
>
> As the error message indicates as well as the fact that firefox is
> starting f
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 03:43:19PM +0100, Mick wrote
> I don't mind recompiling it if this is what must happen, is there any
> particular system-* USE flag which I should disable? BTW, in previous
> versions I have these FF USE flags set in a corresponding package.use file:
>
> system-harfbuzz
Peter Humphrey schrieb am 16.09.19 um 09:47:
>
> In my case, building with all those system libraries causes firefox to fail
> on
> startup: it complains thus:
>
> $ firefox
> 1568619005920 addons.manager ERROR Exception calling provider
> GMPProvider.startup: [Exception... "Component ret
On 2019-09-16 15:43, Mick wrote:
> Actually, on two systems FF 68 has been a disaster:
>
> As reported by Peter, it crashes when launched.
I rebuilt with the default flags (ie. with the system libraries) and so
far it is working ok.
> I have found three approaches to allow it to launch.
>
>
On Monday, 16 September 2019 14:03:37 BST Mick wrote:
> On Monday, 16 September 2019 08:47:33 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > 1568619006132 Marionette FATAL> ^
> > JavaScript error: resource://gre/modules/AutoCompletePopup.jsm, line 113:
> > NS_ERROR_ILLEGAL_VALUE: Component returned fail
On Monday, 16 September 2019 08:47:33 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 September 2019 22:35:05 BST Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > On 2019-09-15 16:21, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:08:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> > >
> > > > Is this for real or is it a mistake to be r
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 02:35:05PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> On 2019-09-15 16:21, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:08:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> >
> > > Is this for real or is it a mistake to be reverted soon? I do not
> > > enjoy the thought of rebuilding firefox tw
On Sunday, 15 September 2019 22:35:05 BST Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2019-09-15 16:21, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:08:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> >
> > > Is this for real or is it a mistake to be reverted soon? I do not
> > > enjoy the thought of rebuilding firefox twic
On 2019-09-15 16:21, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 09:08:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
>
> > Is this for real or is it a mistake to be reverted soon? I do not
> > enjoy the thought of rebuilding firefox twice in a row.
>
> The USE flags seem to have been around for a while.
Davyd McColl wrote:
>
>
> On January 3, 2019 8:59:09 AM Dale wrote:
>
>> Davyd McColl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote:
>>>
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
>> I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would
On January 3, 2019 8:59:09 AM Dale wrote:
Davyd McColl wrote:
On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make
Firefox different from say the average user who jus
Davyd McColl wrote:
>
>
> On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote:
>
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make
Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox
from t
On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make
Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox
from the website.
Is there a reason you don't w
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
>> I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make
>> Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox
>> from the website.
> Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I
> m
On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote:
I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make
Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox
from the website.
Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I
meantion in my previous post?
Davyd McColl wrote:
> And fwiw, I haven't had this problem with building from source either.
> And just recently switched to clang too, though Firefox was plenty
> speedy before so I'm not really noticing the gains that were advertised.
>
> -d
>
>
I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one t
And fwiw, I haven't had this problem with building from source either. And
just recently switched to clang too, though Firefox was plenty speedy
before so I'm not really noticing the gains that were advertised.
-d
On January 1, 2019 9:32:38 AM Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 01/01/2019 06:45,
On 01/01/2019 06:45, Dale wrote:
[...]
[ebuild R ~] www-client/firefox-64.0::gentoo
For what it's worth, I never had that problem with the official Mozilla
build of Firefox (www-client/firefox-bin). Might be worth trying that
instead. Don't forget to "quickpkg firefox" and back up your ~/.m
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 02:29:10 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> I looked at the build times of both Firefox and Seamonkey, they both
>> average out to about the same. For me here, about 1.5 hours. Of
>> course, it varies a bit but that's a rough average. While genlop -t
>> shows comp
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 02:29:10 -0600, Dale wrote:
> I looked at the build times of both Firefox and Seamonkey, they both
> average out to about the same. For me here, about 1.5 hours. Of
> course, it varies a bit but that's a rough average. While genlop -t
> shows compile times, it doesn't averag
(Nuno Silva) wrote:
> On 2018-11-18, Daniel Frey wrote:
> [...]
>> It's really unfortunate that on massive builds distcc is not an option.
>> Maybe I should consider -bin instead.
> If you do happen to have a more powerful machine running Gentoo on a
> compatible architecture[1], you could also try
On 2018-11-18, Daniel Frey wrote:
[...]
> It's really unfortunate that on massive builds distcc is not an option.
> Maybe I should consider -bin instead.
If you do happen to have a more powerful machine running Gentoo on a
compatible architecture[1], you could also try Gentoo binary packages
(that
On 11/18/18 10:19, (Nuno Silva) wrote:
> On 2018-11-18, Daniel Frey wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/18 02:47, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Didi you tried to remove the temporary directory (inside /var/tmp) and
>>> re-emerge id again? It looks like an incorrectly decompressed archive.
>>>
>>
>>
On 2018-11-18, Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 11/18/18 02:47, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Didi you tried to remove the temporary directory (inside /var/tmp) and
>> re-emerge id again? It looks like an incorrectly decompressed archive.
>>
>
> I just tried this, to no avail.
>
> I'm trying t
On 2018-04-04 19:12, Wol's lists wrote:
> Different horses, different courses. I believe the indent was dropped
> to save a keystroke, so why the double-space is there (requiring an
> extra keystroke) I don't know.
>
> And why use secretarial style when you're typesetting? One is for
> letters, t
On 02/04/18 21:50, Philip Webb wrote:
180402 Dale wrote:
After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
I only put one after a comma tho.
That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:21:17AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote
> On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
>
> > That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
> > the way to keyboard. lol
>
> I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
>
> BTW, your mails
Am Dienstag, 3. April 2018, 11:02:32 CEST schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:28:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces,
> > > > not one. Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > > > I only put one afte
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:28:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces,
> > > not one. Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > > I only put one after a comma tho.
> >
> > That is correct professional secretarial style
On Monday, 2 April 2018 21:50:30 BST Philip Webb wrote:
> 180402 Dale wrote:
> > After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
> > Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> > I only put one after a comma tho.
>
> That is correct professional secretarial
Philip Webb wrote:
> 180402 Dale wrote:
>> After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
>> Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
>> I only put one after a comma tho.
> That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too.
>
>> Cou
180402 Dale wrote:
> After each period at the end of a sentence, I put in two spaces, not one.
> Something I was taught years ago somewhere and still do.
> I only put one after a comma tho.
That is correct professional secretarial style, which I always follow too.
> Could that be triggering somet
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Daniel Frey wrote:
>> On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>> BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters
>> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message
> After every "." there is a non-breakable space inserted.
> I guess this is an attempt of some editor to n
180402 Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 08:26, Daniel Frey wrote:
>> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message, you should also
>> probably check your local configuration.
> They render fine for me in mutt/neomutt, too.
Same here.
> I can only see the strange spaces in my editor (emacs 2
Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>> BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters
>
> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message
After every "." there is a non-breakable space inserted.
I guess this is an attempt of some editor to non-french-space
ASCII t
On 2018-04-02 08:26, Daniel Frey wrote:
> I don't see any extra spaces in Dale's message, you should also
> probably check your local configuration.
They render fine for me in mutt/neomutt, too. I can only see the
strange spaces in my editor (emacs 24) when I start replying to him and
quote his
On 04/02/18 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
>
>> That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
>> the way to keyboard. lol
>
> I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
>
> BTW, your mails are full of strange spac
On 2018-04-02 03:59, Dale wrote:
> That last bit should read can NOT win. Brain didn't quite make it all
> the way to keyboard. lol
I read it as beautifully subtle sarcasm, so it worked fine as it was.
BTW, your mails are full of strange space characters - I didn't
investigate if they're some Un
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 02/04/18 13:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>> I use the palemoon overlay.
>> There is also the octopus overlay.
>> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>>
>>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
>> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5
Walter Dnes wrote:
> Mind you, the Pale Moon team may not
> have the staffing level required to write a new compiler, maintain a
> politically correct "community", integrate real-time-chat into the
> browser, integrate "Pocket" into the browser, rewrite the GUI every so
> often, yada, yada, yada.
On 02/04/18 13:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>> I use the palemoon overlay.
> There is also the octopus overlay.
> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>
>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
> and as somebody familiar wit
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 05:41:03AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote
I don't speak officially for Pale Moon. See
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7818 for the official
word about the manpower situation. Mind you, the Pale Moon team may not
have the staffing level required to write a new
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
>>> I use the palemoon overlay.
>> There is also the octopus overlay.
>> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>>
>>> builds fine with gcc-6.4
>> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
>
On 04/02 08:23, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> > On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >> It seems currently that mozilla, google, and apple are the only
> >> oranganizations with enough resources to maintain full browsers,
> >> and any forks of their browsers which diverge more th
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> It seems currently that mozilla, google, and apple are the only
>> oranganizations with enough resources to maintain full browsers,
>> and any forks of their browsers which diverge more than a patchset
>> of essentially fixed size are
On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> > I use the palemoon overlay.
>
> There is also the octopus overlay.
> Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
>
> > builds fine with gcc-6.4
>
> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
> and as somebody famili
Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> I use the palemoon overlay.
There is also the octopus overlay.
Anyway, both can only react to upstream.
> builds fine with gcc-6.4
Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5,
and as somebody familiar with the code posted somewhere,
the reasons are quite
On 02/04/18 08:28, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 18:22, Dale wrote:
>
>> Just for giggles, I tried to re-emerge palemoon. This is part of the
>> output I got.
>>
>> * Supported GCC versions: 4.7, 4.9
>> * Selected GCC version: 6.4
> I no longer use the overlay; I have my own private ebuild s
On 2018-04-01 18:22, Dale wrote:
> Just for giggles, I tried to re-emerge palemoon. This is part of the
> output I got.
>
> * Supported GCC versions: 4.7, 4.9
> * Selected GCC version: 6.4
I no longer use the overlay; I have my own private ebuild series. I
tried to remove the old gcc dependenc
I've been using Palemoon, built with gcc/6.40-r1, for about a month now with
only two crashes that I can think of. Otherwise it has been doing everything I
need in a browser and I'm very happy with it. I still keep Firefox around, but
rarely fire it up anymore.
I am curious, however, what the P
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 16:29, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> An alarm sign for me was that palemoon was eventually dropped for
>> android after being practically unmaintained (i.e. with known open
>> security holes) for months/years. A similar alarm sign concerning
>> linux is that they wer
On 2018-04-01 16:29, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> An alarm sign for me was that palemoon was eventually dropped for
> android after being practically unmaintained (i.e. with known open
> security holes) for months/years. A similar alarm sign concerning
> linux is that they were not able to pull the fixes
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 09:15, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> noscript, ublock-origin, and https-everywhere (maybe for privacy also
>> coupled with decentraleyes, duckduckgo{-privacy-esesntials},
>> canvasblocker, skip-redirect)
I had forgottten to mention: These WebExtensions (and some mo
On 2018-04-01 09:15, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> If you speak about defenses like noscript, there are safer variants
> available. I guess the usage of the already mentioned user.js (of
> course adapted to your needs) together with current Webextensions
> noscript, ublock-origin, and https-everywhere (ma
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-03-31 08:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
>> As usual, there is the balance
>> "convenience" (old plugins) <-> "security".
>> In the beginning (say, until firefox-52 is no longer supported
>> upstream), there is a certain choice. But after that staying on the
>> "convenie
On 2018-03-31 08:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> As usual, there is the balance
> "convenience" (old plugins) <-> "security".
> In the beginning (say, until firefox-52 is no longer supported
> upstream), there is a certain choice. But after that staying on the
> "convenience" side is not sane anymore.
tu...@posteo.de wrote:
>
> There two reasons for which I have switched to waterfox: Privacy and
> memory.
>
> About:config and search for "telemetry"
Telemetry can be switched off.
> Or check how many URLS are configured under about:config.
It is in "about:config", so they can be switched off.
On 03/31 12:17, Arve Barsnes wrote:
> On 31 March 2018 at 10:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > Exceptions are only certain well-defined APIs which will presumably
> > not change dramatically in future versions.
> > For instance, there is a tab API, but essentially it is limited
> > to basic things like
On 31 March 2018 at 10:18, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Exceptions are only certain well-defined APIs which will presumably
> not change dramatically in future versions.
> For instance, there is a tab API, but essentially it is limited
> to basic things like searching/activating/closing/opening tabs etc:
Dale wrote:
>
> I been holding off on upgrading Firefox. Basically, it breaks addons
> that I just can't go without. Tab groups and some other tab utilities
> are among them.
Basically the situation is the following:
>=firefox-57 support so-called WebExtensions which intentionally
are less power
On 2018-01-28, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-01-27 at 18:17 +, Richard Bradfield wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Forgive me if this has been spotted elsewhere, it's not in this list
>> yet
>> as far as I can see.
>>
>> The excellent work to bring the version of Rust in ~amd64 up to date
>> h
I was doing the exact same thing this weekend! The answer is yes (I think).
I'm not on my Gentoo box at the moment, so I'm not 100% sure that I
don't have apulse - I don't recall installing it, but I definitely
don't have pulseaudio. The sound was working (with speakertest), but I
had no sound in
On 2018-01-14 18:50, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> And: I dont want to start a flame war here. Yoy asked and tried
> to give a answer, which may be useful onlu to explain my own point
> of view.
Yes, it is very useful, many thanks. Exactly what I asked for.
--
Please don't Cc: me privately on maili
On 01/14 08:54, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2018-01-14 05:49, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
>
> > I tried Palemoon some time ago. I checked its security and privacy
> > feature with certain sites on the internet, which provide such
> > services and found some issues, which I wanted to discuss on their
> >
On 2018-01-14 05:49, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
> I tried Palemoon some time ago. I checked its security and privacy
> feature with certain sites on the internet, which provide such
> services and found some issues, which I wanted to discuss on their
> forum. The answer was not to believe such sites a
On 14/01/18 06:17, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
Hi,
Is it posible to use Firefox wihout pulseaudio installed?
If "yes" -- how can I acchieche this?
Thanks a lot for any help in advance!
Add this to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
media-sound/pulseaudio-11.1
This will tell portage to assu
On 2017-05-19, Grant Edwards wrote:
> The latetest firefox-bin 52.1.0 seems to no longer obey gtk's assigned
> keybindings. I use emacs keybindings, and all other gtk apps still
> seem to work fine.
>
> Can anybody provide any hint as to how you set the keybindings in
> firefox-bin 52.1.0?
Ah. A
Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> I got fed up dealing with Firefox addons, so took the alternate route I
> used about every 6 months or so:
>
> emerge -et world
>
> and everything is nice and stable now after 48 hours running. I actually
> suspect an intel driver/mesa problem as I would often also get visu
Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:39:04 -0500
> schrieb Dale :
>
>> Kai Krakow wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:08:39 -0500
>>> schrieb Dale :
>>>
Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> [...]
>> [...]
>> [...]
I tried it on one profile I have and it was not good. It slowed
Am Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:39:04 -0500
schrieb Dale :
> Kai Krakow wrote:
> > Am Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:08:39 -0500
> > schrieb Dale :
> >
> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> >> I tried it on one profile I have and it was not good. It slowed
> >> Firefox to a crawl. It too
Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:08:39 -0500
> schrieb Dale :
>
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 14:59:48 Dale wrote:
>>>
Ublock is another option as well. I use it on some Firefox
profiles. It does seem to respond better than Adblock but some
things I
On 21/03/2017 21:50, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:35:36 +0200
> schrieb Alan McKinnon :
>
>> This post is rather vague, sorry about that in advance.
>>
>> I've spent much time on this and gotten absolutely nowhere. So I
>> conclude all my thoughts and assumptions are wrong and not w
Am Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:08:39 -0500
schrieb Dale :
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 14:59:48 Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Ublock is another option as well. I use it on some Firefox
> >> profiles. It does seem to respond better than Adblock but some
> >> things I don't like about Ublock
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 14:59:48 Dale wrote:
>
>> Ublock is another option as well. I use it on some Firefox profiles.
>> It does seem to respond better than Adblock but some things I don't like
>> about Ublock.
>>
>> I may look into that Ghostery too. See if it is availabl
On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 14:59:48 Dale wrote:
> Ublock is another option as well. I use it on some Firefox profiles.
> It does seem to respond better than Adblock but some things I don't like
> about Ublock.
>
> I may look into that Ghostery too. See if it is available for Firefox
> and Seamonkey
On Wednesday 22 Mar 2017 23:48:06 Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:12:36 +
> schrieb Peter Humphrey :
> > You have me thinking now. I have a couple of spare 1TB SSDs here, and
> > my workstation is a 12-core i7 running on a 256GB NVMe drive with 32
> > GB RAM.
> >
> > Maybe I should
Am Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:12:36 +
schrieb Peter Humphrey :
> On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 22:50:04 Kai Krakow wrote:
>
> ---<8
>
> > I'm combining this with bcache. That's a cache between kernel and
> > filesystem that you put on SSD. Apparently, it requires
> > repartitioning to map your filesystem
On Tuesday 21 Mar 2017 22:50:04 Kai Krakow wrote:
---<8
> I'm combining this with bcache. That's a cache between kernel and
> filesystem that you put on SSD. Apparently, it requires repartitioning
> to map your filesystem through bcache (it has to add a protective
> superblock in front of your FS
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
