similar to: C5: The Firefox ESR 45.1.0 Nighmare

On 29 April 2016 at 09:55, isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com> wrote: > Always Learning writes: > > However the time-wasting problem remains, so too do the down-loaded > > extensions in /tmp, example tmp-xxx.xpi > > The reason behind this is the missing patch referenced by Johnny's posting > that you referenced in a follow-up. > > What I would really like to see,

> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 22:27:16 -0400 > From: Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:32AM +0100, Always Learning wrote: >> >> Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR >> 45.1.0 > > Errr... you mean Red Hat released a security update (see >

Always Learning writes: > However the time-wasting problem remains, so too do the down-loaded > extensions in /tmp, example tmp-xxx.xpi The reason behind this is the missing patch referenced by Johnny's posting that you referenced in a follow-up. What I would really like to see, talking about SIGs and such, is an rpm for palemoon, but I fear it can't be done on C5. Even C6 only

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 22:27 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:32AM +0100, Always Learning wrote: > > Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR 45.1.0 > > Errr... you mean Red Hat released a security update (see > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-0695.html), and CentOS > rebuilt and released it. > > What,

On 04/29/2016 10:21 PM, James Hogarth wrote: > On 29 April 2016 at 09:55, isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Always Learning writes: >>> However the time-wasting problem remains, so too do the down-loaded >>> extensions in /tmp, example tmp-xxx.xpi >> The reason behind this is the missing patch referenced by Johnny's posting >> that you

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:32AM +0100, Always Learning wrote: > Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR 45.1.0 Errr... you mean Red Hat released a security update (see https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2016-0695.html), and CentOS rebuilt and released it. What, exactly, would you like the CentOS maintainers to do differently? Are you volunteering your time to help?

On 04/28/2016 10:20 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 22:27 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:23:32AM +0100, Always Learning wrote: >>> Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR 45.1.0 >> >> Errr... you mean Red Hat released a security update (see >>

On 04/29/2016 04:44 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: *snip* > So what's gone wrong with the Linux Desktop developers? I don't know, but that's why I use MATE. I get acceptable performance on my T410 thinkpad with 4GB of memory and outstanding performance on my home built desktop with 16GB of memory. The T410 has been upgraded with an Intel SSD. Gnome3 on the Thinkpad was just painful.

firefox-45.1.0-1.1.el5.centos Clicking:- Edit Preferences Privacy Show Cookies no longer works. It always did function before the upgrade to FF 45. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.

On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:53 +0100, Always Learning wrote: > firefox-45.1.0-1.1.el5.centos > > > Clicking:- > Edit > Preferences > Privacy > Show Cookies > > no longer works. It always did function before the upgrade to FF 45. SOLVED. Adblock Plus blocked the 'moz-safe-about:blank' frame. Do not understand why 'moz-safe-about:blank' frame

On Mon, 2 May 2016 18:01, Always Learning wrote: > On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 16:53 +0100, Always Learning wrote: >> firefox-45.1.0-1.1.el5.centos >> >> >> Clicking:- >> Edit >> Preferences >> Privacy >> Show Cookies >> >> no longer works. It always did function before the upgrade to FF 45. > > SOLVED. > > Adblock Plus

On 06/12/2015 12:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sat, June 13, 2015 1:22 pm, jd1008 wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2015 12:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:05:16PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >>>> Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist >>>> that is not viewable by the user. >>>> The whitelist tab does NOT

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:49PM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > I for one am looking for decent replacement for firefox for at least 5 > years (no, do not suggest chrome, or google anything, please), still > without success. The bizarre with Firefox started shortly after a guy I > know (as undergraduate student in our Department) became production > director of Mozilla

Fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266918

On Fri, June 12, 2015 2:03 pm, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:38:35PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >> I was just using that as an example of damaging javascripts. >> The current version of noscript no longer tells the number of >> javascrits that are blocked out of the total (per web site). >> In the older versions, I would dlete all entries in the visible

This is v2 of the 4/4 patch from the original series. Changes: - memoize the function this time - check packages are installed using rpm_package_of_string However I didn't combine the two case together, because the code is a bit simpler with them separate. Rich.

On 2016-05-06, Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro> wrote: > Guys if you are using my repo on CentOS 6 then the new Firefox might > not like the old ffmpeg I ship. > > There is new and apparently working stuff in my testing repo; try to > upgrade and see if that solves the problem. Feedback welcome so I can > move the testing packages in the main repo sooner, rather than later. >

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in > centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;) > > Works very nicely...... Sorry, I think I am missing something. What is the rpm/package called? So is it i386 installed on x8664, or what? Google's website still claims it

Yes David, I'm using a release 32 of Firefox to reach my olds C6100 IDRAC7 interface. The problem is for latest Firefox versions as they require libgtk-3 not available in Centos6/RHEL6 distribution. Today I use a very very bad solution to reach my switch with latest firmware version from the latest Firefox available in CentOS: I disable https and use http.... Even if it is on a private

Hi, Is anyone using mozPhone? If so any feedback you can provide? Thanks, Glenn