Package Details: firefox-beta-bin 134.0b1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/firefox-beta-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: firefox-beta-bin
Description: Standalone web browser from mozilla.org - Beta
Upstream URL: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/#beta
Keywords: gecko
Licenses: GPL, MPL, LGPL
Conflicts: firefox-beta
Provides: firefox
Submitter: Schnouki
Maintainer: symen (bittin)
Last Packager: bittin
Votes: 398
Popularity: 1.14
First Submitted: 2010-07-07 09:05 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-26 07:46 (UTC)

Dependencies (13)

Required by (167)

Sources (4)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next › Last »

Epicanis commented on 2010-11-08 22:05 (UTC)

Probably because they're impatient. Either that, or they noticed that b7 was built on the 4th (though it's not scheduled to be actually released to the public until probably Wednesday, Nov 9.) https://wiki.mozilla.org/WeeklyUpdates/2010-11-08

yetAnotherZero commented on 2010-10-12 16:03 (UTC)

let me know when it drops. releases are still at b6 :-)

cookiecaper commented on 2010-10-12 06:11 (UTC)

Out of date? The nightlies are now Firefox 4.0b8pre, implying that 4.0b7 should be released or releasing shortly.

yetAnotherZero commented on 2010-09-23 17:54 (UTC)

Just so you know: I use makepkg to pull the sources. I just hard code the 686 arch in to get that file to come down. It sounds like it's isolated to your machine somehow.

Rulatir commented on 2010-09-23 00:51 (UTC)

I'm on i686. Tried with raw makepkg w/o wrappers (used aurget before). The problem persists. The file being downloaded is: firefox-4.0b6.tar.bz2 Size: 13705216 MD5: 83f53c99a457cbc8c92648b73fbc42bc SHA1: e1b62c6251a01fd05e304ff52c00ecee5085757b When downloaded with a web browser, the size is 13704023, and this is the good file. Binary diff viewer indicates that the bad file is exactly the good file zero-padded to the next multiple of 4k. Must be a bug in whatever makepkg uses to retrieve the file, or in btrfs (falloc???).

Rulatir commented on 2010-09-23 00:09 (UTC)

@speed145a: while it is possible that a download was bad, it is very unlikely that a download, a re-download, a re-re-download and a re-re-re-download were ALL bad. This file is downloaded from a single location, so it was NOT just bad luck with mirrors. Attempting again now.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next › Last »