Firefox...

vdias · 2009-02-16 19:54:16

Why does on arch repositories we just find firefox Gran Paradiso and not the stable version and normal version?

wonder · 2009-02-16 19:58:15

the answer is in here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Firefox

Firefox is an open-source graphical web browser from Mozilla. The Firefox package in Arch Linux is compiled without official branding. This means that when you start Firefox it will use a blue globe for its icon and will be named after its release series' codename. This has to be done because a distribution may use the name "Firefox" and its artwork only if there are no unofficial modifications (i.e. no custom patches).

short story: if we patch it we can't use branding

Last edited by wonder (2009-02-16 19:59:04)

Xiong Chiamiov · 2009-02-16 21:02:01

I'm curious as to what the devs patch, since we generally try to keep things as vanilla as possible.

As to the stable-ness, Arch oftentimes uses RCs for main packages (mplayer is a good example) if they're judged to be stable. That is, after all, what we get in Arch: the latest stable release.

blazercist · 2009-02-16 21:28:23

Whatever patches they apply to Firefox they should change the user agent string back to firefox because the default "GranParadiso" cause some compatibility issues on certain websites. Namely, for myself it was EBay that caused problems, changing the user agent string fixed the problem.

Mektub · 2009-02-16 21:33:20

vdias wrote:

Why does on arch repositories we just find firefox Gran Paradiso and not the stable version and normal version?

You can always install and execute 'firebrand', a script that rebrands FF.

Its on:

archlinuxfr/firebrand 1.0-4
A script to brand Firefox without recompiling.

So to install it with pacman you need

[archlinuxfr]
Server = http://repo.archlinux.fr/i686

in /etc/pacman.conf

Mektub

haxit · 2009-02-16 21:35:01

Simple solution. Recompile/Brand. Now was that so hard?

fukawi2 · 2009-02-16 21:48:50

blazercist wrote:

Whatever patches they apply to Firefox they should change the user agent string back to firefox because the default "GranParadiso" cause some compatibility issues on certain websites. Namely, for myself it was EBay that caused problems, changing the user agent string fixed the problem.

I think there's legal issue surrounding that as well... Technically I guess it counts as branding

sokuban · 2009-02-16 21:58:03

Xiong Chiamiov wrote:

I'm curious as to what the devs patch, since we generally try to keep things as vanilla as possible.

I don't believe we patch much. We used to have branded firefox but we don't have it any more because it wasn't worth it to go through the process I hear.

Mr.Elendig · 2009-02-16 22:39:42

From the PKGBUILD:

patch -Np1 -i ${srcdir}/mozilla-firefox-1.0-lang.patch || return 1
# FS#10836: fixes backgroundcolor parsing with gnome
patch -Np0 -i ${srcdir}/mozbug421977.patch || return 1
patch -Np1 -i ${srcdir}/firefox-appversion.patch || return 1

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2009-02-16 22:40:18)

vdias · 2009-02-17 14:13:09

But why does firefox needed to be patch to be used on arch and not in all other SO ???

dyscoria · 2009-02-17 14:28:08

vdias wrote:

But why does firefox needed to be patch to be used on arch and not in all other SO ???

Arch is not alone in the patching of firefox or any other software. I'm sure there are many other linux distros that patch firefox alot more than Arch Linux does.

Having to use firefox without official branding (when it is called Gran Paradiso) is a pretty damn small price to pay for a few small patches that fix usability for the user. I'd rather use a Gran Paradiso that is fully functional than a Firefox with a few glitches or problems.

If you disagree with firefox being patched, then you should look at the PKGBUILD for openoffice. You'll rip your hair out

vdias · 2009-02-17 14:31:55

Dyscoria i have nothing against patching firefox i just wanted to know why does it needed to be patched and what is the different between this one and the one that i was using with my ubuntu machine...

dyscoria · 2009-02-17 14:37:35

vdias wrote:

Dyscoria i have nothing against patching firefox i just wanted to know why does it needed to be patched and what is the different between this one and the one that i was using with my ubuntu machine...

There is alot of software in the Arch repositories that have a few patches applied for either functionality or usability (or even because it won't build at all without a patch).

You mentioned in the first post of this thread:

vdias wrote:

Why does on arch repositories we just find firefox Gran Paradiso and not the stable version and normal version?

Gran Paradiso is not the 'unstable' version of Firefox. It is just 'unbranded', which means for the average user such as yourself, there is no difference whatsoever apart from the name of the program that appears at the top of your window. In fact, the command to run Gran Paradiso is still /usr/bin/firefox

Inxsible · 2009-02-17 18:58:27

.....and even the name Gran Paradiso or what have you is a name used by Mozilla themselves, but only when they are still in development. On release they name it Firefox.

so its not that Arch changes the name as they wish or anything.

alex_anthony · 2009-02-17 19:23:19

One of the differences with other distros as I understand it is Mozilla's approval. For every new package/patch version, you have to send it off to Mozilla to get approved if you want to use branding. OK for bigger distros, but our devs have better things to do.

methuselah · 2009-02-17 20:47:20

haxit wrote:

Simple solution. Recompile/Brand. Now was that so hard?

The AUR even has a simple PKGBUILD for this: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18019

Ranguvar · 2009-02-17 21:21:57

alex_anthony wrote:

One of the differences with other distros as I understand it is Mozilla's approval. For every new package/patch version, you have to send it off to Mozilla to get approved if you want to use branding. OK for bigger distros, but our devs have better things to do.

Especially since most distros release every 6 months, or more, with some scheduled updates in-between - we are rolling release, and update _fast_.

1LordAnubis · 2009-02-17 21:59:48

$ sudo pacman -S firebrand
$ sudo firebrand
This script must be launched as root to work.
Please select the branding you want to apply (Official Firefox: 1, Iceweasel: 2, Swiftweasel: 3)
1
Done

Wintervenom · 2009-02-17 22:21:26

fukawi2 · 2009-02-17 22:22:27

<offtopic>
Anyone know what the next name is? We had Bon Echo, then Minefield and now Gran Paradiso (at least in my time using Arch)
</offtopic>

fukawi2 · 2009-02-17 22:25:44

1LordAnubis wrote:

$ sudo pacman -S firebrand
$ sudo firebrand
This script must be launched as root to work.
Please select the branding you want to apply (Official Firefox: 1, Iceweasel: 2, Swiftweasel: 3)
1
Done

Fail.

root ~ # yaourt firebrand
root ~ #

dunc · 2009-02-18 20:13:47

fukawi2 wrote:

<offtopic>
Anyone know what the next name is? We had Bon Echo, then Minefield and now Gran Paradiso (at least in my time using Arch)
</offtopic>

Shiretoko. It's a peninsula, and national park, at the northeasternmost point of Hokkaido in Japan.

Bon Echo is a park in Ontario. Gran Paradiso is a mountain - and national park (are we seeing any theme developing here? ) - in the Italian Alps. And Minefield is the name used for any pre-release version.

fukawi2 · 2009-02-18 21:34:17

Thanks dunc... Not sure if I like that one. I might rebrand back to Gran Paradiso when that's released

Mr.Elendig · 2009-02-18 22:22:29

fukawi2 wrote:

Fail.

root ~ # yaourt firebrand
root ~ #

Fail.

[oh@Alice][~]%pacman -Ss firebrand 
archlinuxfr/firebrand 1.0-4
    A script to brand Firefox without recompiling.

fukawi2 · 2009-02-19 00:08:56

Mr.Elendig wrote:

Fail.

[oh@Alice][~]%pacman -Ss firebrand 
archlinuxfr/firebrand 1.0-4
    A script to brand Firefox without recompiling.

Ohhhhhh, archlinuxfr/firebrand 1.0-4.

Me =~ Epic Fail

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-16 19:54:16

Firefox...

#2 2009-02-16 19:58:15

Re: Firefox...

#3 2009-02-16 21:02:01

Re: Firefox...

#4 2009-02-16 21:28:23

Re: Firefox...

#5 2009-02-16 21:33:20

Re: Firefox...

#6 2009-02-16 21:35:01

Re: Firefox...

#7 2009-02-16 21:48:50

Re: Firefox...

#8 2009-02-16 21:58:03

Re: Firefox...

#9 2009-02-16 22:39:42

Re: Firefox...

#10 2009-02-17 14:13:09

Re: Firefox...

#11 2009-02-17 14:28:08

Re: Firefox...

#12 2009-02-17 14:31:55

Re: Firefox...

#13 2009-02-17 14:37:35

Re: Firefox...

#14 2009-02-17 18:58:27

Re: Firefox...

#15 2009-02-17 19:23:19

Re: Firefox...

#16 2009-02-17 20:47:20

Re: Firefox...

#17 2009-02-17 21:21:57

Re: Firefox...

#18 2009-02-17 21:59:48

Re: Firefox...

#19 2009-02-17 22:21:26

Re: Firefox...

#20 2009-02-17 22:22:27

Re: Firefox...

#21 2009-02-17 22:25:44

Re: Firefox...

#22 2009-02-18 20:13:47

Re: Firefox...

#23 2009-02-18 21:34:17

Re: Firefox...

#24 2009-02-18 22:22:29

Re: Firefox...

#25 2009-02-19 00:08:56

Re: Firefox...

Board footer