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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #224465 > unrolled thread

Firefox non-ESR update needed

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 00:20 +0200
    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-07 00:30 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 05:30 +0200
        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-07-07 10:00 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Keith bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 05:50 +0200
        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Keith bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2020-07-08 02:20 +0200
    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Bob Weber <bobrweber@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 02:10 +0200
      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 05:40 +0200
        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 09:00 +0200
          Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 15:50 +0200
            Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 16:00 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-07 16:10 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 16:30 +0200
                  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-08 17:20 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-07 17:40 +0200
                  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 18:10 +0200
                  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 18:10 +0200
                    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed  John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 18:40 +0200
                      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 19:30 +0200
                        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 19:40 +0200
                        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-07 19:50 +0200
                          Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2020-07-08 23:20 +0200
                    Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-07-07 18:50 +0200
                      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-07-07 19:30 +0200
                      Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-07 21:20 +0200
                        Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-07-07 21:40 +0200
                          Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-07 23:30 +0200
              Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-07-07 22:30 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-07 22:50 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-07-07 23:00 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-07-07 23:10 +0200
                  Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-07-07 23:50 +0200
                Re: Firefox non-ESR update needed Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-08 07:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#224465 — Firefox non-ESR update needed

This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only 
version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display bugs 
that I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.

While generally the pages I create look pretty much the same on whatever 
browser I use, I have one where firefox_esr seems to reverse two columns 
(bootstrap 4 col class within a row class). Chromium gets the columns in 
the right order but has a different idea of vertical spacing than 
firefox_esr when looking through a small-device filter - plus it crashes 
within a minute of starting (I don't mind that because Chromium is just 
a pop-up generator anyway).

Strangely, the version of Chrome on my antique smartphone seems to agree 
with firefox_esr, as does the version of Firefox for Android that I'm using.

An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out 
which spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian 
world, most people are not using the ESR release and most are probably 
more current than what I'm using.

Anyway, just putting it out there that a non-ESR version might be nice...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#224466

Gary Dale wrote: 
> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only
> version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display bugs that
> I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
> 
> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out which
> spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian world, most
> people are not using the ESR release and most are probably more current than
> what I'm using.


You're not disallowed from installing Firefox from Mozilla, it's
just not packaged because it updates at least once a month,
and that would violate "stable" policy.

I recommend uncompressing it in /opt if you need to offer it to
multiple users, or anywhere in your /home if you don't.

-dsr-

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

#224473

On 2020-07-06 18:20, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Gary Dale wrote:
>> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only
>> version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display bugs that
>> I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
>>
>> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out which
>> spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian world, most
>> people are not using the ESR release and most are probably more current than
>> what I'm using.
>
> You're not disallowed from installing Firefox from Mozilla, it's
> just not packaged because it updates at least once a month,
> and that would violate "stable" policy.
>
> I recommend uncompressing it in /opt if you need to offer it to
> multiple users, or anywhere in your /home if you don't.
>
> -dsr-


Not disallowed but not exactly allowed. I need to go outside the Debian 
repositories. Having a firefox and firefox_esr options would allow for 
both. I don't think this is the only package that could benefit from 
having both an esr and regular version.

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

#224483

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 11:26:32PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:

[...]

> >You're not disallowed from installing Firefox from Mozilla, it's
> >just not packaged because [... stable ...]

> Not disallowed but not exactly allowed.

By whom?

Cheers
-- t

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

#224475

On 7/7/20 8:20 am, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Gary Dale wrote:
>> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only
>> version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display bugs that
>> I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
>>
>> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out which
>> spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian world, most
>> people are not using the ESR release and most are probably more current than
>> what I'm using.
> 
> 
> You're not disallowed from installing Firefox from Mozilla, it's
> just not packaged because it updates at least once a month,
> and that would violate "stable" policy.
> 
> I recommend uncompressing it in /opt if you need to offer it to
> multiple users, or anywhere in your /home if you don't.
> 
> -dsr-
> 

Here hear, I say

As an example, I run nightly (shows as v80) on Bullseye. It updates at 
least every day, seems like sometimes twice a day, but I may be loosing 
track of when I deferred the restart - you get the option of restart now 
or later.

Over at least 6 months, I have had 2 instances of it not wanting to 
start on reboot.  I just download and install the latest version on the 
Mozilla site.

I use a separate partition for the apps I use mostly - I multi boot and 
/home is mounted noexec.


If that sounds like to advanced there is the beta option as well.

-- 

Keith Bainbridge

keithrbau@gmail.com

0447 667468

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

#224550

On 7/7/20 1:26 pm, Keith bainbridge wrote:
> On 7/7/20 8:20 am, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> Gary Dale wrote:
>>> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only
>>> version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display 
>>> bugs that
>>> I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
>>>
>>> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out 
>>> which
>>> spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian world, most
>>> people are not using the ESR release and most are probably more 
>>> current than
>>> what I'm using.
>>
>>
>> You're not disallowed from installing Firefox from Mozilla, it's
>> just not packaged because it updates at least once a month,
>> and that would violate "stable" policy.
>>
>> I recommend uncompressing it in /opt if you need to offer it to
>> multiple users, or anywhere in your /home if you don't.
>>
>> -dsr-
>>
> 
> Here hear, I say
> 
> As an example, I run nightly (shows as v80) on Bullseye. It updates at 
> least every day, seems like sometimes twice a day, but I may be loosing 
> track of when I deferred the restart - you get the option of restart now 
> or later.
> 
> Over at least 6 months, I have had 2 instances of it not wanting to 
> start on reboot.  I just download and install the latest version on the 
> Mozilla site.
> 
> I use a separate partition for the apps I use mostly - I multi boot and 
> /home is mounted noexec.
> 
> 
> If that sounds like to advanced there is the beta option as well.
> 

On relection about something said about mixing versions

Firefox-esr starts alongside firefox v80 - just checked

the standard install of Thunderbird in bullseye did NOT start - 
complaining about a profile that was set by a newer version (78 in my 
case). it was deleted. I have had no problems with the advanced version 
I am using since I learnt that I have to point the start menu to the 
specific profile.

-- 

Keith Bainbridge

keithrbau@gmail.com

0447 667468

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

#224471

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 7/6/20 5:28 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the only 
> version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has display bugs that 
> I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
>
> While generally the pages I create look pretty much the same on whatever 
> browser I use, I have one where firefox_esr seems to reverse two columns 
> (bootstrap 4 col class within a row class). Chromium gets the columns in the 
> right order but has a different idea of vertical spacing than firefox_esr when 
> looking through a small-device filter - plus it crashes within a minute of 
> starting (I don't mind that because Chromium is just a pop-up generator anyway).
>
> Strangely, the version of Chrome on my antique smartphone seems to agree with 
> firefox_esr, as does the version of Firefox for Android that I'm using.
>
> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out which 
> spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian world, most 
> people are not using the ESR release and most are probably more current than 
> what I'm using.
>
> Anyway, just putting it out there that a non-ESR version might be nice...
>
Firefox 78 is in unstable.  I run testing but I occasionally pick up things in 
unstable if they don't mess up testing like firefox.  I have used it for a while 
mainly watching Netflix and for other sites that don't like Chrome beta (banking 
mostly).

-- 


*...Bob*

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

#224474

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-07-06 20:00, Bob Weber wrote:
> On 7/6/20 5:28 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>> This is a wish-list feature but I'm running Debian/Bullseye and the 
>> only version of Firefox is the ESR one. It's stable but it has 
>> display bugs that I'd like to if they are fixed in a newer version.
>>
>> While generally the pages I create look pretty much the same on 
>> whatever browser I use, I have one where firefox_esr seems to reverse 
>> two columns (bootstrap 4 col class within a row class). Chromium gets 
>> the columns in the right order but has a different idea of vertical 
>> spacing than firefox_esr when looking through a small-device filter - 
>> plus it crashes within a minute of starting (I don't mind that 
>> because Chromium is just a pop-up generator anyway).
>>
>> Strangely, the version of Chrome on my antique smartphone seems to 
>> agree with firefox_esr, as does the version of Firefox for Android 
>> that I'm using.
>>
>> An updated (non-ESR) version of Firefox would allow me to figure out 
>> which spacing is the more accurate. I expect outside of the Debian 
>> world, most people are not using the ESR release and most are 
>> probably more current than what I'm using.
>>
>> Anyway, just putting it out there that a non-ESR version might be 
>> nice...
>>
> Firefox 78 is in unstable.  I run testing but I occasionally pick up 
> things in unstable if they don't mess up testing like firefox.  I have 
> used it for a while mainly watching Netflix and for other sites that 
> don't like Chrome beta (banking mostly).
>
>
Perfect. It's not labelled as esr so hopefully it won't interfere with 
the esr package.

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

#224478

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Lu, 06 iul 20, 23:33:46, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 2020-07-06 20:00, Bob Weber wrote:
> > 
> > Firefox 78 is in unstable.  I run testing but I occasionally pick up
> > things in unstable if they don't mess up testing like firefox.  I have
> > used it for a while mainly watching Netflix and for other sites that
> > don't like Chrome beta (banking mostly).
> > 
> > 
> Perfect. It's not labelled as esr so hopefully it won't interfere with the
> esr package.

APT/dpkg can install packages side-by-side that don't have the same name 
(as is the case with 'firefox' and 'firefox-esr').

What those package will do to your user files (your profile in this 
case) is a completely different matter...

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

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

#224488

On 2020-07-07 02:55, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 06 iul 20, 23:33:46, Gary Dale wrote:
>> On 2020-07-06 20:00, Bob Weber wrote:
>>> Firefox 78 is in unstable.  I run testing but I occasionally pick up
>>> things in unstable if they don't mess up testing like firefox.  I have
>>> used it for a while mainly watching Netflix and for other sites that
>>> don't like Chrome beta (banking mostly).
>>>
>>>
>> Perfect. It's not labelled as esr so hopefully it won't interfere with the
>> esr package.
> APT/dpkg can install packages side-by-side that don't have the same name
> (as is the case with 'firefox' and 'firefox-esr').
>
> What those package will do to your user files (your profile in this
> case) is a completely different matter...
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

I did install it and it is a single package. It runs fine in parallel 
with the esr release. Hopefully the maintainers will continue the 
practice of having firefox and firefox_esr available and bring it to 
Testing.

On my original reason for wanting to try it, it has the same display 
issues as firefox_esr when used in Responsive Design Mode. Interesting 
Chrome on my antique smart phone has the same problem but Chromium 
doesn't when I use it's "Developer Tools".

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

#224489

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:45:56AM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> I did install it and it is a single package. It runs fine in parallel with
> the esr release. Hopefully the maintainers will continue the practice of
> having firefox and firefox_esr available and bring it to Testing.

You don't understand what testing *IS*!

Testing is not a "rolling release".

Testing is not a thing you use because it makes you cooler.

Testing is not a thing you use because it has higher version numbers of
packages, and the sum of all the package version numbers is your score,
and having a higher score makes you win the game.

Testing is not a thing you use because you're an immature child who thinks
any package more than a year old is, like, TOO OLD TO BE USED BY ANYONE,
like ohmygod.

Testing is the NEXT STABLE RELEASE.

Testing is what will become Debian 11, bullseye, in a year or two.

When bullseye is stable, it will not have an unstable firefox package.

When bullseye is stable, it will have firefox-esr, which is a stable
package (or as close as you can get with a browser), because it is a
stable release.

Therefore, testing has firefox-esr.

You run testing because you want to help TEST THE NEXT STABLE RELEASE,
so that you can find bugs in it and report them, and get them fixed
before the release.

Because they sure as hell will not be fixed AFTER the release.  This is
your one and only chance.

If you are the kind of person who MUST HAVE THE LATEST THING, then
Debian is not meant for you.

This includes browsers.

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

#224491

On Tuesday, July 07, 2020 09:57:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> If you are the kind of person who MUST HAVE THE LATEST THING, then
> Debian is not meant for you.

Wow, not sure what sparked that response, but I will say one thing, you might 
run testing if your bank insists you have the latest thing (browser).

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

#224499

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:06:08AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 07, 2020 09:57:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > If you are the kind of person who MUST HAVE THE LATEST THING, then
> > Debian is not meant for you.
> 
> Wow, not sure what sparked that response, but I will say one thing, you might 
> run testing if your bank insists you have the latest thing (browser).

Well, you could switch banks.

Or, you could install the unstable upstream Firefox releases from
mozilla.com or whatever it's called this year.  And have fun playing
"what broke this week".

Personally, I find it hard to believe your statement about a bank
requiring a *new* web browser to work.  I would be more likely to believe
"My bank requires that I use an incredibly *old* browser version."
Or even "My bank only works with Microsoft Internet Explorer."

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

#224601

On Tuesday, July 07, 2020 10:21:48 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:06:08AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wow, not sure what sparked that response, but I will say one thing, you
> > might run testing if your bank insists you have the latest thing
> > (browser).
> 
> Well, you could switch banks.
> 
> Or, you could install the unstable upstream Firefox releases from
> mozilla.com or whatever it's called this year.  And have fun playing
> "what broke this week".
> 
> Personally, I find it hard to believe your statement about a bank
> requiring a *new* web browser to work.  I would be more likely to believe
> "My bank requires that I use an incredibly *old* browser version."
> Or even "My bank only works with Microsoft Internet Explorer."

Aside: I suppose I should clarify that I am not the OP.

Then, more to the point, maybe I use incredibly old browsers (e.g., Firefox 
52.8.0 in Wheezy), and the bank(s) (and similar places that I sometimes deal 
with) insist on less incredibly old browsers -- in any case, I often get 
messages to the effect that I need to update my browser to work with a specific 
site.  

(Then I (usually) switch to my Jessie or Buster installation, which I will 
transtion to completely, one of these days, or maybe not.)

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

#224507

On Tue 07 Jul 2020 at 10:06:08 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 07, 2020 09:57:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > If you are the kind of person who MUST HAVE THE LATEST THING, then
> > Debian is not meant for you.
> 
> Wow, not sure what sparked that response,

Probably the fact that there have been a lot of postings about testing
recently, which seem to think testing is whatever they want it to be.
For example, the thread on testing's imaginary "security policy".

> but I will say one thing, you might 
> run testing if your bank insists you have the latest thing (browser).

Yeh, right. Use the suite that's lacking a security policy to carry
out all your financial transactions. ?

Cheers,
David.

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

#224508

rhkramer writes:
> but I will say one thing, you might run testing if your bank insists
> you have the latest thing (browser).

Get a browser from Backports.  Or use Chromium.  You're probably
allowing Google full access anyway.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#224509

On Tuesday 07 July 2020 11:32:04 David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 07 Jul 2020 at 10:06:08 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 07, 2020 09:57:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > If you are the kind of person who MUST HAVE THE LATEST THING, then
> > > Debian is not meant for you.
> >
> > Wow, not sure what sparked that response,
>
> Probably the fact that there have been a lot of postings about testing
> recently, which seem to think testing is whatever they want it to be.
> For example, the thread on testing's imaginary "security policy".
>
> > but I will say one thing, you might
> > run testing if your bank insists you have the latest thing
> > (browser).
>
> Yeh, right. Use the suite that's lacking a security policy to carry
> out all your financial transactions. ?
>
> Cheers,
> David.

I'd tend to look at it like this: If the banks IT people think its a big 
enough risk to use the old version, and demands the new one even before 
the paint is dry, then it must be pretty serious and the distros should 
turn up the heat to get it out into the users hands asap. Not sit on it 
till the next release a year hence as seems to happen now, using the 
excuse that it is a new feature and that has to wait for the next 
chapter of the release cycle.

Unfortunately, the public is now so used to some so-called expert crying 
wolf when its a mongrel puppy, that they've gone to the dark side and 
are no longer making that noise in hopes the black hats will be slowed 
in exploiting the newly found vulnerability. So we are left in the 
dark. 'scuse me?

So we the users, are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#224513

Gene writes:
> I'd tend to look at it like this: If the banks IT people think its a big 
> enough risk to use the old version, and demands the new one even before 
> the paint is dry, then it must be pretty serious and the distros should 
> turn up the heat to get it out into the users hands asap.

More likely it's just a policy of always requiring the latest version
so that they don't have to actually think about it.  Besides, it may
support a new widget that the Web designers simply *must* add to the
site ASAP.

> Not sit on it till the next release a year hence as seems to happen
> now, using the excuse that it is a new feature and that has to wait
> for the next chapter of the release cycle.

That's what Backports is for.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#224517

On Tuesday 07 July 2020 12:32:39 John Hasler wrote:

> Gene writes:
> > I'd tend to look at it like this: If the banks IT people think its a
> > big enough risk to use the old version, and demands the new one even
> > before the paint is dry, then it must be pretty serious and the
> > distros should turn up the heat to get it out into the users hands
> > asap.
>
> More likely it's just a policy of always requiring the latest version
> so that they don't have to actually think about it.  Besides, it may
> support a new widget that the Web designers simply *must* add to the
> site ASAP.
>
> > Not sit on it till the next release a year hence as seems to happen
> > now, using the excuse that it is a new feature and that has to wait
> > for the next chapter of the release cycle.
>
> That's what Backports is for.

And the 'deb' line in sources.list for stretches backports is?

Thanks John.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#224519

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:25:05PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> And the 'deb' line in sources.list for stretches backports is?

https://www.google.com/search?q=debian%20backports%20stretch

https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

Once you find the instructions for buster, just replace "buster" with
"stretch" in every instance.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web