Package Details: librewolf-bin 133.0.3-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/librewolf-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: librewolf-bin
Description: Community-maintained fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom.
Upstream URL: https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/
Keywords: browser web
Licenses: GPL, MPL, LGPL
Conflicts: librewolf
Provides: librewolf
Submitter: lsf
Maintainer: lsf
Last Packager: lsf
Votes: 407
Popularity: 10.84
First Submitted: 2019-06-16 13:12 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-12-15 09:43 (UTC)

Dependencies (16)

Required by (28)

Sources (7)

Pinned Comments

lsf commented on 2021-11-10 12:14 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-17 07:18 (UTC) by lsf)

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository#Acquire_a_PGP_public_key_if_needed

gpg --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com --search-keys 031F7104E932F7BD7416E7F6D2845E1305D6E801

/edit: starting with 112.0-1, the binaries are signed with the maintainers shared key, so gpg --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com --search-keys 662E3CDD6FE329002D0CA5BB40339DD82B12EF16 should do the trick instead. I've also signed the key with the previously used key, so you have at least some guarantee that it's not a malicious attack :)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .. 19 Next › Last »

karolyi commented on 2024-08-04 17:39 (UTC)

@mabod, if that matters: I get a value of Infinity (no kidding) with a self-compiled librewolf (only my own patch is applied extra, it's why I compile manually), and 21.4 on FF 128.0 on my 5950.

I guess my librewolf surpassed lightspeed? :)

mabod commented on 2024-08-04 17:30 (UTC) (edited on 2024-08-05 05:54 (UTC) by mabod)

Something is wrong with the performance of this binary on my Ryzen 9 5900X. When I test performance with https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.0/ I get a score of only 11,9. Firefox with the same version 128.0.3 reaches a score of 13,7, which is 15 % better. Since both are using the same source code I would assume librewolf-bin is using different compiler options. When I compile librewolf by myself with 

CFLAGS="-march=x86-64-v3 -O2 -pipe -fno-plt -fexceptions \
    -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wformat -Werror=format-security \
    -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection"

I get a score of 15,9, which is excellent. Only exceeded by Chromium with 17,9. So something seems to be odd with the compiler options used to build librewolf-bin.

FrostyWave commented on 2024-07-28 08:01 (UTC)

there is new release 128.0.3-1

marbens commented on 2024-07-28 04:18 (UTC)

This package is NOT out-of-date. Somebody used an out-of-date flag as a "bug report."

rcfox commented on 2024-07-22 18:52 (UTC)

I'm having issues closing any pop-up menu by clicking away from them, whether it be right click menus or from an addon, etc. Is anyone else experiencing this?

impulse commented on 2024-06-23 19:32 (UTC)

Can you please add me as a co-maintainer so i can keep this package up-to-date?

lsf commented on 2024-04-29 06:40 (UTC)

For anyone interested: this is the upstream change that caused this issue for those on Manjaro, where pacman is still behind.

I've just pushed an 1.1 that just skips the git source checksum again for now.

karolyi commented on 2024-04-28 22:30 (UTC)

@Dawa I'm on Manjaro too. As stated earlier, it's a bit behind on package versions. I can live with Librewolf 124, we'll just have to wait for the next manjaro update (and see what it breaks)

Dawa commented on 2024-04-26 19:26 (UTC)

I'm on evil, evil, evil Manjaro (my apologies, I blame society) and yes the update is broken. Not eager to just skip hash checks in the wake of the whole xz thing. Not interested in switching to another update method. Looking forward to some kind of update here. Thanks lsf for maintaining this package.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .. 19 Next › Last »