Talk:Firefox

From Gentoo Wiki
Jump to:navigation Jump to:search
Note
This is a Talk page - please see the documentation about using talk pages. Add newer comments below older ones, sign comments using four tildes (~~~~), and indent successive comments with colons (:). Add new sections at the bottom of the page, under a heading (== ==). Please remember to mark sections as "open for discussion" using {{talk|open}}, so they will show up in the list of open discussions.

Special URLs

Talk status
This discussion is done.

Prefixing Special URLs with http:// is definitely wrong. Copy one of them like "http://about:config" to the url bar, press ENTER and Firefox will take you to some search page. --Charles17 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't check, glad you caught that! My intention there was to provide links for Firefox users to click on that would take them to the internal configuration pages. Have any idea on how we could provide a click able link there? I reverted the links to copy and paste code as they were before before; I think click able links would work better. --Maffblaster (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/192080/firefox-links-to-local-or-network-pages-do-not-work --Charles17 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Broken link in USE flag section

Talk status
This discussion is done.

The link to the Backtraces page (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/backtraces.xml) for the debug use flag description, results in a 404. The correct one is probably Project:Quality_Assurance/Backtraces. However, I wasn't able to figure out how to change it (probably somewhere within the Template:USEflag) --Paraenggu (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. It might take a little while before the page gets refreshed. You were right in your figuring, the correct article to update was Template:USEflag/use.desc. We'd like to eventually do away with the way USE flags are handled for a more dynamic method, however that work is yet to be done. :) Thanks for the keen observation! Keep up the good work! --Maffblaster (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note the warning

Talk status
This discussion is done.

The "Emerge" section says, "users of the pre-built package should note the warning below." What warning below? Please enlighten. - dcljr (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The source of the problem is this update. The warning was moved, and I guess later deleted. Stqn (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the general part of the warning about not being able to set the listed USE flags. - dcljr (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I think most Gentoo users know about it. I added the warning in case newcomers think unbranded Firefox (Aurora) USE flags are effective for Firefox. --Maffblaster (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

fakeslotting is newly available

Talk status
This discussion is done.
user $equery m firefox
 * www-client/firefox [gentoo]
Maintainer:  mozilla@gentoo.org (Gentoo Mozilla Team)
Upstream:    None specified
Homepage:    https://www.mozilla.com/firefox
Location:    /var/db/repos/gentoo/www-client/firefox
Keywords:    91.5.0:0/esr91: amd64 arm64 x86
Keywords:    91.5.1:0/esr91: ~amd64 ~arm64 ~ppc64 ~x86
Keywords:    91.6.0:esr: ~amd64 ~arm64 ~ppc64 ~x86
Keywords:    96.0.3:0/96: ~amd64 ~arm64 ~ppc64 ~x86
Keywords:    97.0:rapid: ~amd64 ~arm64 ~ppc64 ~x86
License:     MPL-2.0 GPL-2 LGPL-2.1

Imho the article lacks details about fakeslotting is available and the differences to chromium and the diffs to real slotting. How can it be used... https://bugs.gentoo.org/828531 --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jens3 (talkcontribs)

Hey, yes obviously the intent is to write more about it here. I've been meaning to update the mozilla wiki page a bit more overall, but it's not top of priority list even currently. Juippis (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


What is "fakeslotting"? This is not a real term used in Gentoo. The bug seems like this maintainer made up that term for some odd reason. A slot is a slot. They all act the same way. --Grknight (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Per how devmanual describes slotting, we can't really call this a proper use of slots. Besides fakeslot is a commonly known term, just pop in to our IRC where it's been discussed long ago, and thrown around daily lately. Juippis (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
So really this is abusing the slots for your own purpose and a nasty habit to start. With Firefox being an ultimate leaf package, you won't see many issues directly. But, if people adopt this more widely, it's a nightmare once anything else depends on it. While technically possible, it is a bad idea to actually accomplish without making all slots installable at the same time as intended. --Grknight (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ehh, Firefox isn't the only package doing this. But yes, because it has no rdeps I did consider this possibility. I wouldn't recommend taking that route for packages that do. However, here, it works the best out of what's available. If you have better solutions - let me hear it. Juippis (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Some slotted packages can be installed in parallel and other not. How do you distinguish that? Jens3 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no way to distinguish. Slots are slots and are created allow side-by-side installation. It is wrong to allow such things as blocking other slots. This is due to confusing Portage on resolution and unnecessary work by users to do what is necessary. If a maintainer wants to slot packages, then don't be lazy and do it the right way. --Grknight (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
"unnecessary work by users to do what is necessary." - they were introduced to make users lives easier. Out of curiosity, what is the "non-lazy proper way" you propose? Juippis (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Are the other slots or package versions blocked? You call it slots and blocking the other slot (version?). Imho this fact should be mentioned on the wiki page of firefox.
Brian Evans (Grknight) and Joonas Niilola (Juippis) , a better place for Gentoo development discussion is IRC or email. At this point I think discussing wiki documentation has been lost from the scope of this discussion... Probably best to move onto one of those mediums for the rest. :) --Maffblaster (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
...or forums or mailing list ? I've been reading along here in the hope of learning why this solution over creating separate packages xD -- Ris (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)