Package Details: firefox-nightly 127.0a1+20240430.1+h650dda918743-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/firefox-nightly.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: firefox-nightly
Description: Development version of the popular Firefox web browser
Upstream URL: https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/channel/#nightly
Keywords: browser gecko web
Licenses: MPL-2.0
Submitter: None
Maintainer: heftig
Last Packager: heftig
Votes: 609
Popularity: 0.90
First Submitted: 2008-09-10 14:23 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-04-30 09:10 (UTC)

Dependencies (38)

Required by (0)

Sources (4)

Pinned Comments

heftig commented on 2022-07-27 22:26 (UTC)

Instead of building this yourself, please use the repository from https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=117157.

Not only do you skip the very time-consuming builds, but the published package also has debug symbols at Mozilla's crash reports service, which helps tremendously with finding or filing bugs for any crashes you get.

I consider this the canonical firefox-nightly package for Arch Linux.

[heftig]
SigLevel = Optional
Server = https://pkgbuild.com/~heftig/repo/$arch

Alternatively, download Firefox Nightly straight from Mozilla, extract it to a writable place (e.g. ~/.local/firefox-nightly) and let it update itself using the integrated updater.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next › Last »

cgirard commented on 2011-01-12 09:15 (UTC)

@xenom : do you happen to read the comments sometimes ?

Det commented on 2011-01-11 20:15 (UTC)

b10_pre_

Xabre commented on 2011-01-11 17:28 (UTC)

b10 is out

cgirard commented on 2011-01-05 15:12 (UTC)

I've just tested it and yes, it does not, as expected. The thing is I have asked xenom to add the "-N" option to wget to be able to be able to detect when the file has been changed on the server side. With your sha512sum hack, we do detect it but we need to manually delete the old source file. I understand that having these wget, bsdtar and sha512sum is not really elegant, but at the end of the day the same operations are done ? Aren't they ? @xenom: what do you think about this ? Either way a solution has to be taken because right now the PKGBUILD package the wrong file (download a file and package an older one already there).

Det commented on 2010-12-30 19:16 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Well, I don't think it does. It just says that the checksum failed. But really, since a new trunk build for Firefox is released _daily_ and not like every 10 minutes (as with Chromium), it's good enough. I don't think there's even a way to trick makepkg e.g. to manually check whether the tarball passed the sha512sum check and if it wouldn't it would be replaced with a new one. That won't work because the sha512sum check is done _before_ the "build()" and "package()" functions are executed, meaning.. well, that it just wouldn't work. I(ns)t(ead) _could_ be done that the tarball would *manually* be downloaded and then *manually* checked against the sha512sum in "http://ftp.mozilla.org" but that's just... stupid, if you ask me. The maintainer can choose to do that if he wishes to but I couldn't bring myself to care for that matter even if my life depended on it (just kidding).

cgirard commented on 2010-12-30 18:35 (UTC)

No what I meant is : does makepkg download a new copy of the file if an older version is already downloaded ?

Det commented on 2010-12-30 18:23 (UTC)

Yes it would. But if you look at the upload times you notice that the files are uploaded at the same time. To avoid exactly that.

cgirard commented on 2010-12-30 18:07 (UTC)

Won't the packaging just fail if the checksum is invalid (thus the file have been updated on the server side) ?

Det commented on 2010-12-30 17:46 (UTC)

No wait, forget that. It's better to do the downloading and checksumming through the "source=()" section, e.g. like this: http://aur.pastebin.com/zsp1R1hM The only 'disadvantage' with this implementation is that the checksum section needs to be a "sha512sums=()" section. However the same files do not need to be redownloaded because they pass the sha512sum check.

Det commented on 2010-12-30 17:35 (UTC)

Yeah, mv shouldn't be used there. I thought I tested that already. New PKGBUILD for the lazy ones: http://aur.pastebin.com/dh6FBW8w But that other part I didn't really understand that. What do you mean that the quotes "work"? Of course they do.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next › Last »