Package Details: librewolf-bin 124.0.1-1

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: 342
Popularity: 12.77
First Submitted: 2019-06-16 13:12 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-03-23 20:35 (UTC)

Dependencies (16)

Required by (22)

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 8 .. 16 Next › Last »

Connabl commented on 2023-04-20 22:54 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-20 22:55 (UTC) by Connabl)

The file in question for @Spitap's fix below is: /home/yourusername/.local/share/applications/librewolf.desktop

Thanks @Spitap!

Spitap commented on 2023-04-20 20:02 (UTC)

Hi, as @HurricanePootis said, the desktop file seems a bit broken since 112.0. As suggested on librewolf's Reddit, changing StartupWMClass=LibreWolf to StartupWMClass=librewolf-default fixes the problem.

ImperatorStorm commented on 2023-04-19 23:02 (UTC)

Is cloning the Librewolf source repo necessary for a couple image files?

dogknowsnx commented on 2023-04-18 18:18 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 18:26 (UTC) by dogknowsnx)

@ron2138 Firefox's 'omni.ja's are about the same size as they used to be on (the) previous version(s?) of librewolf - definitely strange...

ron2138 commented on 2023-04-18 17:04 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 18:05 (UTC) by ron2138)

Replying to dogknowsnx comment from 2023-04-18 16:02 (UTC):

I didn't examine {librewolf-bin,firefox} 111.0.1-1 sizes before replying. Should I? As for 112.0-1,

$ ls -gho /usr/lib/{librewolf,firefox}/{,browser/}omni.ja
-rw-r--r-- 1 39M Apr 10 14:10 /usr/lib/firefox/browser/omni.ja
-rw-r--r-- 1 31M Apr 10 14:10 /usr/lib/firefox/omni.ja
-rw-r--r-- 1 91M Apr 18 01:30 /usr/lib/librewolf/browser/omni.ja
-rw-r--r-- 1 70M Apr 18 01:30 /usr/lib/librewolf/omni.ja

dogknowsnx commented on 2023-04-18 16:02 (UTC) (edited on 2023-04-18 16:09 (UTC) by dogknowsnx)

@ron2138 Upon comparing librewolf 111 with 112 it appears that the file 'omni.ja' has exploded somehow - don't know if/why it may differ from firefox's 'omni.ja', though... EDIT: Actually there's two of them: '/usr/lib/librewolf/browser/omni.ja' (91M) and '/usr/lib/librewolf/omni.ja' (70M)

ron2138 commented on 2023-04-18 12:22 (UTC)

By 111.0.1-1 => 112.0-1, total installed size 229.62MiB => 314.26MiB. That is a 84.64MiB, +37%, increase. What justifies such an increase? For comparison, the numbers for firefox 111.0.1-1 => 112.0-1 are: 241.58MiB => 242.36MiB. That is a 0.78MiB, +0.03%, increase.

ReneS commented on 2023-04-18 08:56 (UTC)

Thanks @lsf, appreciated.

lsf commented on 2023-04-18 06:47 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting those issues. It's what seems to have also broken other builds (flatpak, for example) atm. I think I know the cause (issues with remotingname/basename etc.), but still working on how to solve it cleanly, without messing up the other LibreWolf builds in the process ^^

ReneS commented on 2023-04-18 06:42 (UTC)

I have the same problem as @HurricanePootis but with GNOME. It's not a big deal but I wonder what's causing the issue.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .. 16 Next › Last »