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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #165706 > unrolled thread

x86_64 vs i386

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

Contents

  x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 18:50 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-03-20 19:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 19:50 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 20:10 +0100
          Stupid ERRATUM was Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:20 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2016-03-20 19:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-23 10:10 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-20 20:40 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-03-20 23:40 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 00:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-21 05:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 09:50 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-03-21 18:50 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 16:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-03-21 16:20 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 17:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 01:10 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Frank McCormick <debianlist@videotron.ca> - 2016-03-22 02:20 +0100
    Re: x86_64 vs i386 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-03-21 16:00 +0100
      Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 17:00 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-03-21 17:10 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 22:20 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-21 22:50 +0100
        Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 00:30 +0100
          Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-22 02:10 +0100
            Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 18:20 +0100
              Re: x86_64 vs i386 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-22 20:00 +0100
                Re: x86_64 vs i386 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 23:50 +0100
                  Re: x86_64 vs i386  now firefoxish Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-23 00:20 +0100
                    Re: x86_64 vs i386  now firefoxish Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-23 03:30 +0100
                    Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish Marc Shapiro <marcnshap@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 03:40 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#165776

On Monday 21 March 2016 11:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus", and
>
> What do you mean by that?
> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
> chromium package?
>
>
>         Stefan
Exactly.

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165802

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus",
> > and
>
> What do you mean by that?
> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
> chromium package?
>
>
>         Stefan

I don't know what is happening with Chromium, But Google Chrome has stopped 
updates for i386, Wheezy and one or two other things.  They didn't affect me, 
so I can't remember what they are!  I have not seen anything about Debian not 
supporting Chromium i386, so it probably still does.

Lisi

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

#165804

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus",
>> > and
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
>> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
>> chromium package?

I just upgraded to Deb 8 (Jessie), 64bit, and tried Chromium but it
didn't work for me.  Downloaded Chrome from Google and it works fine.

Best regards,

-Tom

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

#165805

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Tom Broder writes:
>> I just upgraded to Deb 8 (Jessie), 64bit, and tried Chromium but it
>> didn't work for me.  Downloaded Chrome from Google and it works fine.
>
> That doesn't mean it isn't 32 bit.  Debian has multiarch support.

The file downloaded from Google's Chrome site is:

  google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb

-Tom

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

#165809

On 21/03/16 07:23 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 21 March 2016 15:11:36 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> to Google Chrome, which has indeed "thrown i386 machines under the bus",
>>> and
>> What do you mean by that?
>> There won't be any new versions of Debian's i386 version of the
>> chromium package?
>>
>>
>>          Stefan
> I don't know what is happening with Chromium, But Google Chrome has stopped
> updates for i386, Wheezy and one or two other things.  They didn't affect me,
> so I can't remember what they are!  I have not seen anything about Debian not
> supporting Chromium i386, so it probably still does.
>
> Lisi
>

   Actually google-chrome is built from chromium sources...an 
open-source project. Google just decided
it would bother compiling the 32-bit sources anymore.  I don't know who 
supplies Chromium for
Debian but I imagine 32 and 64 bit is available. I wiped my 32 bit 
stretch/sid partition this past weekend
to install 64 bit so I could access google-chrome again.  Looks the same 
to me :)

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

#165770

> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the bus, 
> and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left behind.

What do you mean by that?


        Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"

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

#165775

On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under the
> > bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff left
> > behind.
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
>
>         Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in 
quite a while?

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165777

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

On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
>>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
>>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
>>> left behind.
>> 
>> What do you mean by that?
>> 
>> 
>> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> 
> You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in
> quite a while?

Where?

You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in part)
to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google upstream
to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this elsewhere
AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)

The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version of
chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium binary from
the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's less than two weeks
old.

Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
different definitions of "quite a while"?

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#165794

On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote:

> On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
> >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
> >>> left behind.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> >
> > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > in quite a while?
>
> Where?
>
> You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in part)
> to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google
> upstream to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this
> elsewhere AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)
>
> The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version of
> chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium binary
> from the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's less than
> two weeks old.
>
> Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
> different definitions of "quite a while"?

No, its far more likely that because this system says its a 32 bit 
system, google is refusing to show me the amd64 version. But I need ti 
figure out how to re-install the 32 bit iceweasel because thats what my 
bank expects, unless someone can tell me how to import the iceweasel 
saved site list and passwds into Chromium.

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165799

On Monday 21 March 2016 17:09:52 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 12:08:15 The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2016-03-21 at 11:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 March 2016 10:50:33 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > >>> But now all the browser coders have thrown i386 machines under
> > >>> the bus, and I'm apparently stuck with the broken i386 stuff
> > >>> left behind.
> > >>
> > >> What do you mean by that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Stefan "who still uses 32bit userland pretty much everywhere"
> > >
> > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > > in quite a while?
> >
> > Where?
> >
> > You confirmed in another mail that you're referring (at least in
> > part) to the chromium package, and to an apparent decision by Google
> > upstream to drop 32-bit support in Chrome. (I haven't heard of this
> > elsewhere AFAIK, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.)
> >
> > The version of chromium:i386 in testing is the same as the version
> > of chromium:amd64 in testing (49.0.2623.87-1), and the chromium
> > binary from the latter package is timestamped March 9th, so it's
> > less than two weeks old.
> >
> > Am I looking in the wrong places, or do we just have significantly
> > different definitions of "quite a while"?
>
> No, its far more likely that because this system says its a 32 bit
> system, google is refusing to show me the amd64 version. But I need ti
> figure out how to re-install the 32 bit iceweasel because thats what
> my bank expects, unless someone can tell me how to import the
> iceweasel saved site list and passwds into Chromium.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

PS: That problem is solved, I found dpkg's arch file & nuked the amd64 
entry.  iceweasel is now reinstalled and all my links and pws are 
restored.

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165803

On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff in
> quite a while?

Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32 bit 
computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
<quote>
My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
Perhaps we could do that at some point. 
We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
</quote>

No updates???

Lisi

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

#165808

On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > in quite a while?
>
> Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32
> bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
> <quote>
> My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
> Perhaps we could do that at some point.
> We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
> </quote>
>
> No updates???
>
Correct, no updates to iceweasel despite a growing list of exploits.

> Lisi


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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165831

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit stuff
> > > in quite a while?
> >
> > Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs a 32
> > bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
> > <quote>
> > My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
> > Perhaps we could do that at some point.
> > We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
> > </quote>
> >
> > No updates???
>
> Correct, no updates to iceweasel despite a growing list of exploits.

The most recent Iceweasel update arrived this Sunday at 22.04.36 GMT.  (See 
below)  You can see the GMT time arrival time of your email above:  Tuesday 
01:04:44.  So no new update in 27 hours and 6 seconds.  You and I have 
different definitions of "quite a while".

Lisi

<quote>
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian Security Advisory DSA-3523-1                   security@debian.org
https://www.debian.org/security/                       Moritz Muehlenhoff
March 20, 2016                        https://www.debian.org/security/faq
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Package        : iceweasel
CVE ID         : not available

This update disables the Graphite font shaping library in Iceweasel,
Debian's version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser.

For the oldstable distribution (wheezy), this problem has been fixed
in version 38.7.1esr-1~deb7u1.

For the stable distribution (jessie), this problem has been fixed in
version 38.7.1esr-1~deb8u1.

For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in
version 45.0.1esr-1 of the firefox-esr source package.

We recommend that you upgrade your iceweasel packages.

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

#165834

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 13:17:26 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit
> > > > stuff in quite a while?
> > >
> > > Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs
> > > a 32 bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
> > > <quote>
> > > My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
> > > Perhaps we could do that at some point.
> > > We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > No updates???
> >
> > Correct, no updates to iceweasel despite a growing list of exploits.
>
> The most recent Iceweasel update arrived this Sunday at 22.04.36 GMT. 
> (See below)  You can see the GMT time arrival time of your email
> above:  Tuesday 01:04:44.  So no new update in 27 hours and 6 seconds.
>  You and I have different definitions of "quite a while".
>
> Lisi
>
> <quote>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Debian Security Advisory DSA-3523-1                  
> security@debian.org https://www.debian.org/security/                  
>     Moritz Muehlenhoff March 20, 2016                       
> https://www.debian.org/security/faq -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
> Package        : iceweasel
> CVE ID         : not available
>
> This update disables the Graphite font shaping library in Iceweasel,
> Debian's version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
>
> For the oldstable distribution (wheezy), this problem has been fixed
> in version 38.7.1esr-1~deb7u1.
>
> For the stable distribution (jessie), this problem has been fixed in
> version 38.7.1esr-1~deb8u1.
>
> For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in
> version 45.0.1esr-1 of the firefox-esr source package.
>
> We recommend that you upgrade your iceweasel packages.

Tell me how girl. Mine highest numbered version 
in /var/cache/apt/archives is dated Feb 14 for a 44.0.x.bpo, but the 
installed one I put back in yesterday from the repos is a 37.7.1, whose 
date is indeed yesterday.  It seems to be working, but why is it not the 
newer version?

ls -l output of archives:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 39445644 Mar 18 22:45 
iceweasel_38.7.1esr-1~deb7u1_i386.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 42916910 Feb 14 18:13 
iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb

It seems to me I ought to be looking at an about screen that says 
44.0.2-1.

What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer one?

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165847

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:54:30 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 March 2016 13:17:26 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 01:04:44 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 March 2016 19:27:11 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 15:54:33 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > You haven't noticed there have been no updates to the 32 bit
> > > > > stuff in quite a while?
> > > >
> > > > Quote at the end of last week from form a client of mine who runs
> > > > a 32 bit computer (Debian 7 and TDE 3.5.13.2):
> > > > <quote>
> > > > My computer is telling me I have 75 updates available.
> > > > Perhaps we could do that at some point.
> > > > We are involved with the Musical Festival this week, so no rush!
> > > > </quote>
> > > >
> > > > No updates???
> > >
> > > Correct, no updates to iceweasel despite a growing list of exploits.
> >
> > The most recent Iceweasel update arrived this Sunday at 22.04.36 GMT.
> > (See below)  You can see the GMT time arrival time of your email
> > above:  Tuesday 01:04:44.  So no new update in 27 hours and 6 seconds.
> >  You and I have different definitions of "quite a while".
> >
> > Lisi
> >
> > <quote>
> > -
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >--- Debian Security Advisory DSA-3523-1
> > security@debian.org https://www.debian.org/security/
> >     Moritz Muehlenhoff March 20, 2016
> > https://www.debian.org/security/faq -
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >---
> >
> > Package        : iceweasel
> > CVE ID         : not available
> >
> > This update disables the Graphite font shaping library in Iceweasel,
> > Debian's version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
> >
> > For the oldstable distribution (wheezy), this problem has been fixed
> > in version 38.7.1esr-1~deb7u1.
> >
> > For the stable distribution (jessie), this problem has been fixed in
> > version 38.7.1esr-1~deb8u1.
> >
> > For the unstable distribution (sid), this problem has been fixed in
> > version 45.0.1esr-1 of the firefox-esr source package.
> >
> > We recommend that you upgrade your iceweasel packages.
>
> Tell me how girl. Mine highest numbered version
> in /var/cache/apt/archives is dated Feb 14 for a 44.0.x.bpo, but the
> installed one I put back in yesterday from the repos is a 37.7.1, whose
> date is indeed yesterday.  It seems to be working, but why is it not the
> newer version?
>
> ls -l output of archives:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 39445644 Mar 18 22:45
> iceweasel_38.7.1esr-1~deb7u1_i386.deb
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 42916910 Feb 14 18:13
> iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb
>
> It seems to me I ought to be looking at an about screen that says
> 44.0.2-1.
>
> What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer one?
So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy.  The one you have is the most 
recent available via the repo.
http://mozilla.debian.net/

You could always use Firefox, as is now recommended.  For instructions see the 
hyperlink I have referenced.  That will give you 45.0.1.

You could presumably download iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb and install 
it with dpkg -i, but why?  If Debian and Mozilla have made up, why not just 
accept it and use Firefox as Debian is now telling you to do?  It takes a bit 
of getting used to, but why perpetuate a quarrel which is over?

Lisi

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

#165850 — Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

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

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer
> > one?
>
> So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy.  The one you have is
> the most recent available via the repo.
> http://mozilla.debian.net/
>
> You could always use Firefox, as is now recommended.  For instructions
> see the hyperlink I have referenced.  That will give you 45.0.1.
>
> You could presumably download iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb and
> install it with dpkg -i, but why?  If Debian and Mozilla have made up,
> why not just accept it and use Firefox as Debian is now telling you to
> do?  It takes a bit of getting used to, but why perpetuate a quarrel
> which is over?
>
> Lisi

It went to the mozilla site and pilled 45.0.1 but it was a tar.bz2, which when unpacked, did not have an installer script that I could find. 

It looks to be prebuilt and ready to rock & roll, but where, and with what utility do I install it with?

Next?

Thanks. 

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165851 — Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

On Tuesday 22 March 2016 19:38:00 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> (Private copy sent as well in case attachment doesn't get through on
> list.)
>
> On Tuesday 22 March 2016 23:14:00 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the
> > > > newer one?
> > >
> > > So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy.  The one you have
> > > is the most recent available via the repo.
> > > http://mozilla.debian.net/
> > >
> > > You could always use Firefox, as is now recommended.  For
> > > instructions see the hyperlink I have referenced.  That will give
> > > you 45.0.1.
> > >
> > > You could presumably download iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb
> > > and install it with dpkg -i, but why?  If Debian and Mozilla have
> > > made up, why not just accept it and use Firefox as Debian is now
> > > telling you to do?  It takes a bit of getting used to, but why
> > > perpetuate a quarrel which is over?
> > >
> > > Lisi
> >
> > It went to the mozilla site and pilled 45.0.1 but it was a tar.bz2,
> > which when unpacked, did not have an installer script that I could
> > find.
> >
> > It looks to be prebuilt and ready to rock & roll, but where, and
> > with what utility do I install it with?
> >
> > Next?
>
> You should be using the Debian repository and apt.  Go to the site I
> referenced and follow the instructions!  It probably doesn't work in
> Synaptic, though it may.  It definitely works in aptitude, it
> obviously works in apt-get, and I would expect it to work in apt.
> http://mozilla.debian.net/
>
> I attach a screen-shot.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> You're welcome,
>
> Lisi

Well, I followed the directions at that site, which FWIW, did not work 
the first time I put it in my sources.list a week+ back up the log, but 
all I had to do was uncomment it again and it worked just fine in 
synaptic too.  So its in, and running fairly well.

CBS is being snotty and won't show me some things unless I disable ALL 
the blockers.  Thats their choice, and its my choice to leave privacy 
badger enabled.

I am getting more and more of my news from non-mainsleaze sites anyway.

Too bad al-jezzera.America  had to fold up their tent and go away, that 
was about as unbiased a news site as we had.

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)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#165852 — Re: x86_64 vs i386 now firefoxish

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

On 03/22/2016 04:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 22 March 2016 18:43:54 Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > > What do I put in /etc/apt/sources.list to gain access to the newer
>
> > > one?
>
> >
>
> > So far as I can see, you can't, not in Wheezy. The one you have is
>
> > the most recent available via the repo.
>
> > http://mozilla.debian.net/
>
> >
>
> > You could always use Firefox, as is now recommended. For instructions
>
> > see the hyperlink I have referenced. That will give you 45.0.1.
>
> >
>
> > You could presumably download iceweasel_44.0.2-1~bpo70+1_i386.deb and
>
> > install it with dpkg -i, but why? If Debian and Mozilla have made up,
>
> > why not just accept it and use Firefox as Debian is now telling you to
>
> > do? It takes a bit of getting used to, but why perpetuate a quarrel
>
> > which is over?
>
> >
>
> > Lisi
>
> It went to the mozilla site and pilled 45.0.1 but it was a tar.bz2, 
> which when unpacked, did not have an installer script that I could find.
>
> It looks to be prebuilt and ready to rock & roll, but where, and with 
> what utility do I install it with?
>
> Next?
>
> Thanks.
>
> 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)
>
> Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
>
For Mozilla's tarballs you don't need anything to install it, other than 
tar and bzip2.  Put the tarball wherever you like, the use the command:

     tar -jxvf firefox-45.0.1.tar.bz2

this will unzip and untar everything into a directory named firefox.  
You can leave the firefox directory there, or rename it, or move it 
wherever you want to.  Inside that directory are two executable files, 
firefox and firefox-bin.  Either one of these will start firefox.  They 
are usually a few bytes different in size, but both seem to work the 
same as far as I can tell.

BTW, the URL

https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest&os=linux64&lang=en-US

will do a download of the latest firefox, and

https://download.mozilla.org/?product=thunderbird-latest&os=linux64&lang=en-US

will do the same for Thunderbird, which can be installed in the same manner.

Whether you want to install Firefox and Thunderbird this way, or not, is 
up to you.  There should be debian packages for Firefox, now.  I'm not 
sure about Thunderbird.  I have been installing them this way ever since 
the Debian/Mozilla debates began.  This way I know that I always have 
the most current version of each of these packages.

Marc

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web