Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.seamonkey > #8626 > unrolled thread

SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now!

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.seamonkey

Contents

  SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-07-07 00:51 +0000
    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Gerhard Strangar <g.s@arcor.de> - 2026-07-07 12:19 +0000
      Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-07 19:53 +0200
    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Peter Müller <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-07 17:16 +0200
      Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-07 19:52 +0200
        Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-07-07 16:53 -0500
          Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Gerhard Strangar <g.s@arcor.de> - 2026-07-08 03:49 +0000
            Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-08 08:06 +0100
              Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-08 09:10 +0100
                Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Gerhard Strangar <g.s@arcor.de> - 2026-07-08 17:56 +0000
                  Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-08 21:53 +0200
                    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Geoff Welsh <GeeDubya@some.rr.com> - 2026-07-13 10:02 -1000
                  Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-20 08:57 +0100
                    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Gerhard Strangar <g.s@arcor.de> - 2026-07-20 18:24 +0000
                      Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-07-20 14:49 -0700
              Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Gerhard Strangar <g.s@arcor.de> - 2026-07-08 17:51 +0000
                Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-07-09 22:16 +1000
        Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.invalid> - 2026-07-08 18:29 +0100
          Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-20 08:43 +0100
            Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-07-20 14:41 -0700
              Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.invalid> - 2026-07-21 12:23 +0100
                Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-21 20:15 +0200
                  Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.invalid> - 2026-07-22 11:29 +0100
                    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-22 16:24 +0200
                    Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-07-22 17:12 -0700
                      Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-07-22 19:26 -0700
                        Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-23 14:00 +0200
                          Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! frg <frgrahl@gmx.net> - 2026-07-23 14:03 +0200
                Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-07-21 13:44 -0700
                Re: SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-22 09:31 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#8626 — SeaMonkey 2.53.24b(eta)1 is out now!

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2026/07/06/seamonkey-2-53-24b1-is-out-now/
-- 
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." --Matthew 24:35. Project Hail Mary > World Cup (poor Mexico).
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8627

Ant wrote:
> https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2026/07/06/seamonkey-2-53-24b1-is-out-now/

I'm missing
seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/COPYING
seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/UNLICENSE
seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/LICENSE-MIT

I just touched them, since they don't matter, but then I run into:
 0:02.28 error: the listed checksum of
`seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/byteorder/LICENSE-MIT` has changed:
 0:02.28 expected:
e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855
 0:02.28 actual:
0f96a83840e146e43c0ec96a22ec1f392e0680e6c1226e6f3ba87e0740af850f

Then I copied them fron bytestr, which did help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8630

Sorry you reported it already but I forgot. I checked and mach vendor rust 
does not pick them up. Deleting the directory and doing it again does. Will be 
fixed for the final.

frg


Gerhard Strangar wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>> https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2026/07/06/seamonkey-2-53-24b1-is-out-now/
> 
> I'm missing
> seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/COPYING
> seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/UNLICENSE
> seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/memchr-1.0.2/LICENSE-MIT
> 
> I just touched them, since they don't matter, but then I run into:
>   0:02.28 error: the listed checksum of
> `seamonkey-2.53.24b1/third_party/rust/byteorder/LICENSE-MIT` has changed:
>   0:02.28 expected:
> e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855
>   0:02.28 actual:
> 0f96a83840e146e43c0ec96a22ec1f392e0680e6c1226e6f3ba87e0740af850f
> 
> Then I copied them fron bytestr, which did help.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8628

Is there a chance that I will see SeaMonkey 2.54.0 or even 3.0?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8629

Peter Müller wrote:
> Is there a chance that I will see SeaMonkey 2.54.0 or even 3.0?
> 

The version number is pretty meaningless. We just keep it for extension 
compatibility. Based on the included patches it would be 2.57 plus x already.

frg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8631

frg wrote on 7/7/2026 12:52 PM:
> Peter Müller wrote:
>> Is there a chance that I will see SeaMonkey 2.54.0 or even 3.0?
>>
> 
> The version number is pretty meaningless. We just keep it for extension 
> compatibility. Based on the included patches it would be 2.57 plus x 
> already.
> 
> frg

Is Seamonkey still broken on a vast number of websites, or has anything 
actually been improved compared to the current standard release (2.53.23) ?

I assumed that seamonkey would never catch up, but I still remain 
hopeful that it can, despite the recent loss of a main contributor.

Thanks for all your effort. I know it's hard, and I don't expect much at 
this point.

Still, we hope for a miracle!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8632

Hank Rogers wrote:

> Is Seamonkey still broken on a vast number of websites, or has anything 
> actually been improved compared to the current standard release (2.53.23) ?

I haven't noticed any differences from 23 to 24b1.
But apart from the non-working pages, it might also be a security issue,
which is why it got removed from the FreeBSD ports in the first place.
So many security issues got fixed in Firefox/Thunderbird lately, I doubt
that they all came with the new features that Seamonkey is missing.


Gerhard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8633

On 2026-07-08, Gerhard Strangar wrote:

> Hank Rogers wrote:
>
>> Is Seamonkey still broken on a vast number of websites, or has anything 
>> actually been improved compared to the current standard release (2.53.23) ?
>
> I haven't noticed any differences from 23 to 24b1.
> But apart from the non-working pages, it might also be a security issue,
> which is why it got removed from the FreeBSD ports in the first place.
> So many security issues got fixed in Firefox/Thunderbird lately, I doubt
> that they all came with the new features that Seamonkey is missing.

Security fixes ported from Firefox and Thunderbird are regularly
included in SeaMonkey releases (the Release Notes will indicate the
"equivalent" Firefox and Thunderbird versions for such fixes).


-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8634

On 2026-07-08, Nuno Silva wrote:

> On 2026-07-08, Gerhard Strangar wrote:
>
>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Is Seamonkey still broken on a vast number of websites, or has anything 
>>> actually been improved compared to the current standard release (2.53.23) ?
>>
>> I haven't noticed any differences from 23 to 24b1.
>> But apart from the non-working pages, it might also be a security issue,
>> which is why it got removed from the FreeBSD ports in the first place.
>> So many security issues got fixed in Firefox/Thunderbird lately, I doubt
>> that they all came with the new features that Seamonkey is missing.
>
> Security fixes ported from Firefox and Thunderbird are regularly
> included in SeaMonkey releases (the Release Notes will indicate the
> "equivalent" Firefox and Thunderbird versions for such fixes).

Lack of caffeine... I wrote the above to say that hopefully security
issues wouldn't be a justification for removal from repositories, but I
trimmed the draft too much and now the reply looks a bit out of place,
sorry for that.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8637

Nuno Silva wrote:

> Lack of caffeine... I wrote the above to say that hopefully security
> issues wouldn't be a justification for removal from repositories,

https://www.freshports.org/www/seamonkey/
"Upstream has poor history of delivering security fixes on time.
2.49.4 was released almost 1 year ago. While 2.49.5 with 60.2
backports is planned[1] it's at least 1 month away while ESR60
will reach EOL in 2 months. By the time 2.57.0 arrives it'll
also be vulnerable."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8638

Gerhard Strangar wrote:
> Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
>> Lack of caffeine... I wrote the above to say that hopefully security
>> issues wouldn't be a justification for removal from repositories,
> 
> https://www.freshports.org/www/seamonkey/
> "Upstream has poor history of delivering security fixes on time.
> 2.49.4 was released almost 1 year ago. While 2.49.5 with 60.2
> backports is planned[1] it's at least 1 month away while ESR60
> will reach EOL in 2 months. By the time 2.57.0 arrives it'll
> also be vulnerable."
> 

We moved to a new infra and it is not that there is much help with actually 
doing things. 2.53.24b1 was done 3 weeks ago but took too long to release it I 
know. The only frequent thing is complaints that stuff is not working. I am 
doing it mostly these days because my browser for 30 years and works well with 
mail and news plus a few web sites. Seriously all help out or take it or leave 
it. I try bt really don't care about the noise. Linux moving to the api of the 
day without backwards compatibility and going wayland only. macOS now with 
frequent bugs and since 26.4 makes SeaMonkey crash. Windows is actually the 
most stable development platform which is a shame but so it is.

As for security I am feeling safer with SeaMonkey than with Chrome or current 
Fx. Some of the stuff now in "up to date" modern browers like the clipboard 
and file api and the pwa stuff is something which is an invitation for 
hackers... Yeahh all sabndboxed and properly audited with AI now so nothing 
can go wrong...

FRG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8642

frg wrote on 7/8/26 9:53 AM:
> .....ome of the stuff now in "up to date" modern browers like
> the clipboard and file api and the pwa stuff is something which is an 
> invitation for hackers... Yeahh all sabndboxed and properly audited with 
> AI now so nothing can go wrong...
> 
> FRG

LOL!  Keep at it my friend!!

GW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8644

On 2026-07-08, Gerhard Strangar wrote:

> Nuno Silva wrote:
>
>> Lack of caffeine... I wrote the above to say that hopefully security
>> issues wouldn't be a justification for removal from repositories,
>
> https://www.freshports.org/www/seamonkey/
> "Upstream has poor history of delivering security fixes on time.
> 2.49.4 was released almost 1 year ago. While 2.49.5 with 60.2
> backports is planned[1] it's at least 1 month away while ESR60
> will reach EOL in 2 months. By the time 2.57.0 arrives it'll
> also be vulnerable."

Some things to note: one is that "poor history of deliverying [updates]"
now applies much more to that note than to SeaMonkey. This is outdated,
to put it simply. It refers to a period when there was indeed a larger
gap between 2.49.4 and 2.49.5.

Another is that ESR lifetimes don't really matter anymore given that
SeaMonkey is doing backports and not trying to follow Firefox and
Thunderbird releases in that fashion (I did say this already re:
security fixes, but I'm mentioning it again because this is a departure
from that "shares the same version codebase" logic, and probably does
explain what's said in the note.)

And then, also because of the above, 2.57 likely won't happen because
2.53 already surpasses it feature/compatibility-wise because of
backports. (To put it in another way: you're likely to get more web
compatibility issues with 2.57 than with 2.53.)

So I suppose this might merely mean nobody has re-added SeaMonkey
there. (Or have there been refusals to re-add the/a port?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8645

Nuno Silva wrote:

> So I suppose this might merely mean nobody has re-added SeaMonkey
> there. (Or have there been refusals to re-add the/a port?)

To have a port, somebody needs to volunteer as maintainer and work on
tickets. If you keep getting tickets, but nothing happens for months,
you'd probably want to stop doing it as well. Take this as mere
explanation on why nobody wants to do it, not as criticism on anything.

> Another is that ESR lifetimes don't really matter anymore given that
> SeaMonkey is doing backports and not trying to follow Firefox and
> Thunderbird releases in that fashion

Firefox did not have so many releases, because it's fun to increase the
number, but because issues needed to be fixed quickly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8647

Gerhard Strangar wrote:
> Firefox did not have so many releases, because it's fun to increase the
> number, but because issues needed to be fixed quickly.

Mozilla decided to break ABI (or was it API or ?) regularly. They spent 
a lot of time on 3.7, one day when it was pointed out that ABI was 
broken, they said screw it, the next version would be 4, and then in 
following Chrome, they decided to do full releases every 6 weeks, I 
think shorter now.
Could always do point releases for bug/security fixes and often they do.
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8636

Nuno Silva wrote:

> Security fixes ported from Firefox and Thunderbird are regularly
> included in SeaMonkey releases

Well, every six month is regularly, but Firefox gets fixed way more often:

Firefox Released
151.0   2026-05-18
151.0.1 2026-05-21
151.0.2 2026-05-25
151.0.3 2026-06-01
151.0.4 2026-06-08
152.0   2026-06-15
152.0.1 2026-06-18
152.0.2 2026-06-23
152.0.3 2026-06-25
152.0.4 2026-06-30

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8639

On 9/07/2026 3:51 am, Gerhard Strangar wrote:
> Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
>> Security fixes ported from Firefox and Thunderbird are regularly
>> included in SeaMonkey releases
> 
> Well, every six month is regularly, but Firefox gets fixed way more often:
> 
> Firefox Released
> 151.0   2026-05-18
> 151.0.1 2026-05-21
> 151.0.2 2026-05-25
> 151.0.3 2026-06-01
> 151.0.4 2026-06-08
> 152.0   2026-06-15
> 152.0.1 2026-06-18
> 152.0.2 2026-06-23
> 152.0.3 2026-06-25
> 152.0.4 2026-06-30
> 
But with, what, three releases in late May and seven releases in June, 
FF QA is not real reliable.

Keep up with what you can SM Devs!! Thank you.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8635

On a slightly different note, is it now impossible to build SM for Linux
x86? Presumably not, since FF ESR still, just, can be. Or what would one
have to do?

Plainly there would be a continuing job verifying that patches
back-ported from 64-bit-only Firefox make sense and compile.

thx
/df

-- 
London
UK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8643

On 2026-07-08, Dirk Fieldhouse wrote:

> On a slightly different note, is it now impossible to build SM for Linux
> x86? Presumably not, since FF ESR still, just, can be. Or what would one
> have to do?
>
> Plainly there would be a continuing job verifying that patches
> back-ported from 64-bit-only Firefox make sense and compile.

I think the biggest challenge might be if you're not cross-compiling
from e.g. amd64. There have been flags you can use to reduce memory
usage when linking (which is bound to be the most memory-intensive
step?), but I have no idea if that's still sufficient.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8646

Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-07-08, Dirk Fieldhouse wrote:
>
>> On a slightly different note, is it now impossible to build SM for Linux
>> x86? Presumably not, since FF ESR still, just, can be. Or what would one
>> have to do?
>>
>> Plainly there would be a continuing job verifying that patches
>> back-ported from 64-bit-only Firefox make sense and compile.
>
> I think the biggest challenge might be if you're not cross-compiling
> from e.g. amd64. There have been flags you can use to reduce memory
> usage when linking (which is bound to be the most memory-intensive
> step?), but I have no idea if that's still sufficient.
>

I think Rust put the nail in the coffin of linking xul on 32 bit, though 
haven't tried. This would be especially true of a debug build.
Even before Rust, linking here took the full 3+GB address space, though 
the introduction of things like the fake libs helped
Davae

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.seamonkey

csiph-web