| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2009-08-25, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Were firefox 3.5.2 and xulrunner 1.9.1.2 marked as stable last |
| 6 |
>>> week and then changed back to unstable this week? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I think so, yes. If you read the Changelog file, it shows this: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> 21 Aug 2009; Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> |
| 11 |
>> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: |
| 12 |
>> revert all stable keywords |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> 20 Aug 2009; Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
| 15 |
>> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: |
| 16 |
>> Stable for HPPA (bug #280393). |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> 20 Aug 2009; Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> |
| 19 |
>> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: |
| 20 |
>> stable x86, security bug 280393 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I forgot about the ebuild changelog file -- I knew I should |
| 23 |
> have been able to figure this out somehow. It was the |
| 24 |
> afternoon/night of the 20th that they got upgraded. Heck, the |
| 25 |
> packages were probably back to unstable before the all of |
| 26 |
> builds finished. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> For other packages I wouldn't care much, but flipping back and |
| 29 |
> forth between "semi-major" versions of firefox/xulrunner is |
| 30 |
> both fairly disruptive and takes hours and hours of build-time. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I guess I'll leave them as-is for a while. Firefox 3.5 is |
| 33 |
> noticably snappier, and downgrading them will take all evening. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If it's working for you, you could always unmask it and at least not |
| 36 |
have to worry about it trying to force a downgrade onto you. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
OT: |
| 39 |
I rarely use Firefox on linux but, on windows, 3.5 takes a longer time |
| 40 |
to load compared to 3.0 (and 3.0 took longer than 2.x). I'm sure |
| 41 |
add-ons and update checks are contributing mostly to that, but I |
| 42 |
remember the good old days when Firefox started up faster than Mozilla |
| 43 |
Suite. :) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I can't remember the reason, but it's a common complaint that Mozilla |
| 46 |
products are slower in general on Linux (I even saw an article |
| 47 |
claiming the windows version of FF running in WINE can outperform the |
| 48 |
native Linux version of FF on the same machine) and I'm certainly one |
| 49 |
who has experienced that. I don't know if there's some configuration |
| 50 |
trick I never learned maybe. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Seamonkey when using its classic theme has a more responsive UI in |
| 53 |
general, one of the reasons I still use it despite its clearly |
| 54 |
inferior javascript/page rendering speed. (The main reason is the |
| 55 |
MultiZilla extension, I'm so used to it. When Seamonkey 1.x is EOL'ed |
| 56 |
it'll be a sad day for me.) |
Archives