Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "1221368".
2016 Apr 29
3
C5: The Firefox ESR 45.1.0 Nighmare
...ood issuing a security improvement when, as Johnny replied in
another posting,
" With respect to CentOS-5, it seems this patch was not
migrated to the 45.0.1 install:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1025187
from this bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221368 "
essential parts were omitted. Perhaps Up-Stream were pre-occupied with
another fundamental change to the product we know and love ? (well, not
C7 yet)
I use Firefox extensively for a multitude of tasks.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. England's place is in the European Union...
2015 May 20
2
CentOS 5.11 / Firefox 38 -- totally borked...
The subject line is deliberate.
It looks like firefox 38 is infliting a rerun of
http://marc.info/?l=centos&m=141288474630498&w=2
upon us. Addons are downloaded into /tmp, but never installed. Not even
Install addon from file works.
Going back to ff31. Grumbling ...
2016 Apr 29
0
C5: The Firefox ESR 45.1.0 Nighmare
...replied in
> another posting,
>
> " With respect to CentOS-5, it seems this patch was not
> migrated to the 45.0.1 install:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1025187
>
> from this bugzilla:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221368 "
>
> essential parts were omitted. Perhaps Up-Stream were pre-occupied with
> another fundamental change to the product we know and love ? (well, not
> C7 yet)
>
> I use Firefox extensively for a multitude of tasks.
OK, when red hat releases a firefox update, we build it....
2015 May 20
0
CentOS 5.11 / Firefox 38 -- totally borked...
...n Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:39:15PM +0100, Lars Hecking wrote:
>
> The subject line is deliberate.
>
> It looks like firefox 38 is infliting a rerun of
> http://marc.info/?l=centos&m=141288474630498&w=2
upstream is aware of it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221368
Tru
--
Tru Huynh
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/cent...
2015 May 27
2
firefox 38 question
Is Firefox 38 still borked for Centos 5?
It shows up as available for update, but I don't recall seeing anything saying
the problems noted here have been fixed.
thanks,
-chuck
--
2015 May 20
1
CentOS 5.11 / Firefox 38 -- totally borked...
...+0100, Lars Hecking wrote:
>>
>> The subject line is deliberate.
>>
>> It looks like firefox 38 is infliting a rerun of
>> http://marc.info/?l=centos&m=141288474630498&w=2
>
> upstream is aware of it:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221368
>
> Tru
Tru created these while we wait:
http://people.centos.org/tru/firefox-38.0-4.el5.centos.bz1221368/
See if that fixes the issue for you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 byt...
2016 Apr 28
1
Firefox 46.0 fails on CentOS 6.7 due to GTK3 requirement
Johnny Hughes writes:
[...]
> I should have the CentOS-6 (and CentOS-5) version of Firefox 45 out in a
> couple of minutes .. currently building metadata and testing them on
> https://ci.centos.org/
Broken, at least on CentOS5. The same file/addon download problem that has plagued every new update release in I don't remember how long. File downloads go to 99% and then stop, or
2004 Sep 10
0
beta 1.0.3 ERROR
--- David Willmore <davidwillmore@iamanidiot.com> wrote:
>
> The test script doesn't seem to stop on error. I noticed this
> in the logs:
>
> ++++++ testing level 1 interface
> simple iterator on read-only file
> generating FLAC file for test
> testing 'metadata.flac'... 0... 1... content... PASSED
> is writable = 1
> ERROR: iterator claims file
2016 Apr 29
5
C5: The Firefox ESR 45.1.0 Nighmare
Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR 45.1.0
* All the add-ons (language dictionaries, Adblock Plus, Classic Theme
Restorer etc.) were disabled with no simple method of reactivating them.
Reason given was they were "unsigned".
* About:config
xpinstall.signatures.required = false
partially reduced the problem.
* Then possible to reactivate some disabled