You are not logged in.
since the upgrade to firefox 5, xulrunner shows up as an orphan on my machines.
Did firefox get rid of the xulrunner dependency? To be sure, I uninstalled xulrunner and sure enough firefox works without it as well. I still haven't removed it from my cache in the unlikely event that something goes wrong.
I have tried looking around, but I didn't find any mozilla site which explains why and how they removed this dependency. This would mean there was a lot changed between FF4 and FF5 as xulrunner was a FF dependency since a long time.
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots !
Offline
I'm curious about this also. I know that the use of a separate xulrunner and a small firefox package built against it is actually something done by the Arch devs (and some other distro packagers), not an upstream recommendation. Mozilla never really approved of building it in two pieces like that.
It would be nice to hear from heftig why he made this change. There was nothing on the mailing lists that I could find. I think it's a win, as it appears to be a bit smaller overall, and I'm sure it's easier for him to maintain.
Offline
I _believe_ it's because of the use of pgo optimization, which needs firefox and xulrunner to not be independant...
Offline
mostly is because mozilla never supported shared xul + firefox and we had a lot of troubles making it work for firefox 4 already, using a huge patch from bugtracker. next is http://lwn.net/Articles/436412/rss
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
Oh, I apologise for posting wrong info then!
Btw, I got that impression from the comments section of the firefox-pgo-4.0.1 aur package, which also is xulrunner-independant, and where Ranguvar stated:
As far as I know, XULRunner cannot be separate from Firefox for PGO building. But if you manage it, please do tell
Again, sorry about that!
Offline
I'm happy with the change; that's a 85MB package that I can cut out of my system.
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline
Almost two days using Firefox 5 without having xulrunner installed, not a single problem yet.
Offline
Almost two days using Firefox 5 without having xulrunner installed, not a single problem yet.
That's strange, are you sure you removed it completely?
ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ
Offline
Just look at the filesize of the new firefox in the repos. It used to be very small, because almost everything was included in the xulrunner package. Now firefox is much bigger, so xulrunner must be included in it.
The only thing I'm wondering is, that the filesizes don't add up. Old firefox + xulrunner is much bigger than new firefox. Where does that come from?
Offline
Just look at the filesize of the new firefox in the repos. It used to be very small, because almost everything was included in the xulrunner package. Now firefox is much bigger, so xulrunner must be included in it.
The only thing I'm wondering is, that the filesizes don't add up. Old firefox + xulrunner is much bigger than new firefox. Where does that come from?
The 'new' Firefox is completely binary compiled, where Xulrunner is more like a generic 'script engine' for running XUL code. Think of it as using the Java-JRE, when you can also compile a program into a much smaller static binary.
ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ
Offline
That's strange, are you sure you removed it completely?
Why is it strange? Working fine for me too.
Offline
Thanks litemotiv, that definitely explains it
Offline
Why is it strange? Working fine for me too.
When everything is working correctly on Arch, you must be doing something wrong, right?
ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ
Offline
find -name *ulrunner* throws no results...
I think is removed completly...
And have some sort of "KDE integration" as well, opening some files with default KDE apps like Ark.
Offline
Still, xulrunner is needed for gjs (Javascript Bindings for GNOME), which is required for GNOME3's gnome-shell.
Anyhow, I wonder where xulrunner's 87MB comes from.
I KISS you.
Offline
Still, xulrunner is needed for gjs (Javascript Bindings for GNOME), which is required for GNOME3's gnome-shell.
Anyhow, I wonder where xulrunner's 87MB comes from.
for gnome 3.2 gnome-shell will use js 1.8.5 which is newly release spidermonkey javascript from mozilla
Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Offline
Anyhow, I wonder where xulrunner's 87MB comes from.
this is great. firefox now takes up 23 MB opposed to chrome's 75.
Offline