similar to: Firefox esr repackage

cool!! that works for now.. thanks Mark!! On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 11:21 AM mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > firefox_repackage via CentOS wrote: > > Hi everyone, I use firefox on centos 7 at work but due to the fairly well > > know extension signing problem, I cannot use ublock origin. > > > > From what I can tell, the latest version of firefox in the updates

> I was told lately about this workaround, check it out. > https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/04/update-regarding-add-ons-in-firefox/ The signing thing is a security feature. I don't like a workaround to disable a security feature instead of fixing it. What makes me feel a bit bad is that everybody has fixed versions by now, only we enterprise Linux users using the ESR version

> The price we pay.. :) Do you say that paying RH customers already received new firefox packages? Regards, Simon > > BTW, Mozilla publishes tarballs that you can simply extract and run (and > will self-update), you can use those (it's what I am doing as a workaround > in fact until RH catches up): > https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/60.6.3esr/linux-x86_64/ >

firefox_repackage via CentOS wrote: > Hi everyone, I use firefox on centos 7 at work but due to the fairly well > know extension signing problem, I cannot use ublock origin. > > From what I can tell, the latest version of firefox in the updates > repository is 60.6.1-1.el7. It looks like Mozilla have just released > firefox esr 60.6.2 which should fix the signing issue. (see >

Am 10.05.2019 um 11:12 schrieb Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro>: > > I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user agent downloading stuff from it. > > It's a bit anecdotal as perhaps not all are actual desktop users and some users were using multiple IPs (dhcp), but it shows there are quite a few users

On 11/05/19 2:05 AM, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: >> Am 10.05.2019 um 11:12 schrieb Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro>: >>> I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year >>> or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user agent downloading >>> stuff from it. >>> >>> It's a bit anecdotal as perhaps not all are actual

The price we pay.. :) BTW, Mozilla publishes tarballs that you can simply extract and run (and will self-update), you can use those (it's what I am doing as a workaround in fact until RH catches up): https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/60.6.3esr/linux-x86_64/ -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "CentOS

I was told lately about this workaround, check it out. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/04/update-regarding-add-ons-in-firefox/ -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> > To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> > Sent:

> On 09/05/2019 09:09, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: >>> The price we pay.. :) >> >> Do you say that paying RH customers already received new firefox >> packages? >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> > > No, Red Hat have not yet released any updates for Firefox. I doubt it's > a priority for them. Which makes me believe they don't

I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user agent downloading stuff from it. It's a bit anecdotal as perhaps not all are actual desktop users and some users were using multiple IPs (dhcp), but it shows there are quite a few users out there running CentOS for desktop purposes. There are desktop focused distros

> Am 10.05.2019 um 11:12 schrieb Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro>: >> >> I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year >> or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user agent downloading >> stuff from it. >> >> It's a bit anecdotal as perhaps not all are actual desktop users and >> some users were using multiple IPs

The currently available fix for Firefox doesn't work with ESR, but there's a temporary fix that works. At least, it's working for me: Go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false. The Firefox folks say that a fix for ESR will be coming at some point, but at least this gets things working again in the short term. It's not clear to me if the fixed ESR (when

Hi Nux, The number will be higher than that. Some large systems just download once to their own private mirror and install from there. Where I used to work each download went to at least 6 systems, probably more. Regards, Martin On 10/05/2019 10:12, Nux! wrote: > I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user

Hello Nux!, On Fri, 10 May 2019 10:12:59 +0100 (BST) Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro> wrote: > I maintain a desktop oriented repo for CentOS and last I checked a year or so ago, I got over 150k+ unique IPs with yum user agent downloading stuff from it. > > It's a bit anecdotal as perhaps not all are actual desktop users and some users were using multiple IPs (dhcp), but it shows

On 09/05/2019 09:09, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: >> The price we pay.. :) > > Do you say that paying RH customers already received new firefox packages? > > Regards, > Simon > No, Red Hat have not yet released any updates for Firefox. I doubt it's a priority for them.

I was able to get h.264 support on www.youtube.com/html5 on fedora 21 by installing gstreamer1-libav but that package does not exist in C6 (or it's popular third party repos) What is the name of the package which adds h.264 to firefox on youtube/html5 in C6?

> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 15:24:50 -0700 > From: Robert Arkiletian <robark at gmail.com> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Richard wrote: >> >> >> > Date: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 14:57:22 -0700 >> > From: Robert Arkiletian <robark at gmail.com> >> > >> > I was able to get h.264 support on

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. >

Hey all, I see this line of code: RestClient.send(verb, url, parameters) Basically there''s two rails application that communicate with each other. RestClient is a rails gem. Here we send the get http verb and a url string comprising of the other application base url and append a query string to it consisting of the new user email that is being created. So if the arguments are these:

i don''t get what is going on here. if i run the restclient command that starts an irb with restclient it works fine but when i try to load it from environment.rb with require ''rest_client'' this is what i get... it''s driving me batty. /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require'': no such file to load --