On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote: > >On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > >>it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > >>(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > >>side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes > >>between 56 and 52). > > > >Ouch. > > > >Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid > >getting into a similar situation again in the future? > > > >I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus > >twelve weeks > >(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/). For > >Fedora 27, would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but > >then stick with Firefox 59 ESR from March onwards? > Fedora can certainly ship ESR line but nobody wants to package/maintain it. ... and nobody even seems to want to use it :) I think that we cannot ignore or escape the fact that we can't hold back Firefox updates. Firefox 57 seems _very_ nice, but even if it wasn't, we just don't have the manpower to hold onto old Firefox versions for a long time. Lifetime of Fedora 27 is 13 or 14 months after the final release of FF57, and by the end of that period FF56 is going to be quite dated, and FF52 ESR even more so. All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+. Personally, I now have µBlock Origin, Gnome Shell Integration, and uMatrix as a replacement for noScript, and that covers my basic needs. The rest I can live without. I'd encourage everybody else to make similar reckoning, and identify the missing _essential_ extensions, and concentrate on them. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
