mozilla repo has FF 115.13.0 and 128.0 esr and dups to 128 for TW (not backwards compatible)
TW users, Small note. I noticed Firefox 115.13.0 was in the mozilla repo and ready to install (which I had been waiting for). So I did zypper dup. To my surprise, 128.0esr was installed instead of 115.13. No problem, a quick downgrade should do. BAM == "Warning you are launching an older version of firefox that will corrupt bookmarks, etc.." WTF? Apparently, the 115 to 128 update is not reversible from the Firefox profile standpoint -- so if you wish to stay with 115.13 - install it explicitly. I'll just stick with the 128 - not worth jacking with profiles just to stay on the same major version. But, it would be nice to have some type warning before irreversible changes are made to the FF profile -- like a dialog before the changes -- to preserve the ability to stay with a major version -- if needed. Here, there probably won't be too many more 115 updates, but still a surprise. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:35:13 -0500 "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@gmail.com> wrote:
TW users,
Small note. I noticed Firefox 115.13.0 was in the mozilla repo and ready to install (which I had been waiting for). So I did zypper dup. To my surprise, 128.0esr was installed instead of 115.13.
No problem, a quick downgrade should do. BAM == "Warning you are launching an older version of firefox that will corrupt bookmarks, etc.."
WTF? Apparently, the 115 to 128 update is not reversible from the Firefox profile standpoint -- so if you wish to stay with 115.13 - install it explicitly.
I'll just stick with the 128 - not worth jacking with profiles just to stay on the same major version. But, it would be nice to have some type warning before irreversible changes are made to the FF profile -- like a dialog before the changes -- to preserve the ability to stay with a major version -- if needed. Here, there probably won't be too many more 115 updates, but still a surprise.
Interesting. I know that 128.0 was released at the same time as 115.13 and there will be synchronised updates of the two until 115 EOL. But mozilla FF is still telling me 115.13.0(esr) is up to date, so it sounds like openSUSE is ahead of the official ESR release.
On 7/15/24 7:51 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
Interesting. I know that 128.0 was released at the same time as 115.13 and there will be synchronised updates of the two until 115 EOL. But mozilla FF is still telling me 115.13.0(esr) is up to date, so it sounds like openSUSE is ahead of the official ESR release.
Yes, just a bit of a TW cockup. Nothing wrong with a rolling-release being even with upstream, but the issue here is FF 128 is actually the NEW version, not the ESR version, that will remain 115.x.x through October, 2024 (roughly another quarter) The issue arises in mozilla intending to base the new ESR on 128 when 115 is EOL. So the mozilla repo jumped the gun on branding both 115 and 128 "firefox-esr" at the same time. (If I really wanted to, I could drop to 115 and pull my profile from the Leap 15.4 disk and just lose about 10 days -- not an issue, but as long as 128 continues to support uBlock, NoScript and Privacy Badger (or Ghostery), then I'm good with the version bump) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
David C. Rankin composed on 2024-07-15 15:54 (UTC-0500):
the mozilla repo jumped the gun on branding both 115 and 128 "firefox-esr" at the same time.
Not so. It's normal for old ESR and new ESR to coexist for about 3 releases: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/128.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/fir... 83M 08-Jul-2024 13:44 https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.13.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/... 77M 08-Jul-2024 13:57 Note the continuing Firefox bloat of binary downloads from mozilla.org: 7.9M 1.0 9.3M 2.0 11M 3.6.28 19M 10esr 23M 17esr 28M 24esr 38M 31esr 45M 38esr 50M 45esr 56M 52esr 51M 60esr IIRC, this is where the original extension system was dropped 62M 68esr more than made up for on next release 68M 78esr 73M 91esr 74M 102esr 77M 115esr 83M 128esr -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
On 7/15/24 4:37 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Not so. It's normal for old ESR and new ESR to coexist for about 3 releases: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/128.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/fir... 83M 08-Jul-2024 13:44 https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.13.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/... 77M 08-Jul-2024 13:57
Thanks Felix, my bad, Though herein lies that subtle issue that catches people off-guard. The original thread was wondering why mozilla still had 115.11.0 for TW instead of the then-current 115.12.0 (build failure was the reason) So when I saw 115.13.0 in the repo, I logically expected the next update to update 115.11.0 to 115.13.0. I updated and clicked to start firefox and BAM, my profile was irreversibly converted to 128.0.0 format due to the update pulling 128.0.0 instead of 115.13.0 as expected. By naming both 128 and 115 "firefox-esr" at the same time you cause 128 to be pulled in instead of 115 due to how the version-preference work. That's not new, that's just how it works. There is virtually no way for a normal user to prevent having a profile converted unless they find both 115 and 128 in the repo (by physically scrolling though it) and then explicitly passing a version to install and then lock firefox-esr before performing an update. That's a bit of a bridge too far. In my case, I would have much rather continued with 115 through EOL in October to ensure that 128 is fully baked before I move to it. However with the irreversible profile changes, that path is now foreclosed. (unless I pull an old profile over -- most people do not have that option) This was after I did look at the mozilla/Tumbleweed/x86_64 repo and saw 115.13.0, but didn't catch that there was also a 128.0esr. Thankfully 128 hasn't given me any issues yet -- so this wasn't as painful as it could have been. Usually it doesn't matter and a simple "Oops I pulled a version I didn't want, just downgrade" is all it takes. But in cases like this where irreversible changes are made to the user's profile without notice -- there should be some better way to prevent this. Just thinking out loud. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
participants (3)
-
Dave Howorth -
David C. Rankin -
Felix Miata