Package Details: librewolf-bin 1:146.0.0_2-1

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.net/
Keywords: browser web
Licenses: MPL-2.0
Conflicts: librewolf
Provides: librewolf
Submitter: lsf
Maintainer: lsf
Last Packager: lsf
Votes: 564
Popularity: 17.26
First Submitted: 2019-06-16 13:12 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-12-11 21:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (39)

Required by (39)

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 25 Next › Last »

PhoenixClank commented on 2025-12-13 10:48 (UTC)

Now that upstream Firefox depends on modern ffmpeg again, what does it take for Librewolf to not depend on ffmpeg4.4 anymore? (How could I help?)

syl commented on 2025-12-11 08:04 (UTC)

@beluga2 before flagging-out would please verify? Librewolf is not following Firefox release rhythm. https://codeberg.org/librewolf/arch

luxido commented on 2025-12-10 14:28 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry if this question has already been asked, but I wondered if you considered packaging librewolf for the extra repo. That would be awesome!

syl commented on 2025-11-30 17:28 (UTC)

@lsf don't mind hatred comments. You are doing a good job, and many of us are thankful for that. Keep it up.

lsf commented on 2025-11-29 23:45 (UTC) (edited on 2025-11-29 23:51 (UTC) by lsf)

I really should stop reading comments. Guess I never learn.

Anyway: PRs for the project are, of course, always very welcome; and the way to address severe lack of current core maintainers (we once were four? five?, now we're like… one and a half, all put together, maybe, depending on how one wants to count?) of a project with a surprisingly large userbase would be… drumroll… for folks to step up and (help to) do the work? If not, well: it will die sooner rather than later. Or probably just stagnate and fizzle out.

/edit: oh, lone-cloud! Now I remember that name. Well known for (now deleted) previous comments not great in tone or helpfulness. Well, thanks, I guess?

ParadiseofMagic commented on 2025-11-29 13:04 (UTC)

@beluga2 Firefox version 145.0.2 was tagged the day you flagged this. Librewolf doesn't perfectly follow Firefox releases, please check https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/browser/bsys6/-/tags before flagging. If you wish to send an issue to upstream(Librewolf themselves), please go to https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues but please be patient. It will take some time before they update to the newest release.

Please remember that this package while maintained by upstream is not where you should sending issues about Librewolf. This package only gets the latest release(binary) thus the -bin suffix, I understand you are new to the AUR please check out https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository . This wiki page contains information on AUR packages and how to use the AUR, the FAQ is particularity helpful.

lone-cloud commented on 2025-11-29 03:17 (UTC)

@olive898 in most cases I would agree with you, but this is the 8th most popular project on AUR with a supposedly huge userbase based on votes. I was hoping that someone would explain to me how this is a good browser. It has come under my attention again recently since it's being spammed with out-of-date flags that the maintainer is not clearing. Notably I didn't know about the PG forums, but they were a great read and for that I thank you. TL;DR: librewolf is a dying browser fork now that its lost its core maintainer (xbrit) last year and the remaining 3 maintainers aren't keeping up. There's no longer a good reason to use librewolf over an alternative.

olive898 commented on 2025-11-27 16:02 (UTC)

@lone-cloud Are you seriously hoping someone will chew you information on AUR comments of all places? If you actually bothered to know why Librewolf isn't listed on Privacy Guides you would have done a quick search on their forum.

Stop being so rude out of nowhere, nobody here owe you anything.

mfmAURuser-name commented on 2025-11-20 19:02 (UTC) (edited on 2025-11-20 19:02 (UTC) by mfmAURuser-name)

Do any of you bother to actually look upstream?

145 was tagged just this morning:

• https://codeberg.org/librewolf/source/releases/tag/145.0.1-1

There are/were issues with porting patches to the new version:

• https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2721

View the ReadMe for how it's packaged:

• https://codeberg.org/librewolf/source#readme

Squidward commented on 2025-11-20 18:38 (UTC)

@lone-cloud The manitainer is sometimes a bit slow on the updates but i dont think this is a horrible thing, they dont do this for money.

as for security, i think you are wrong. librewolf doesnt add or remove any critical part of the web engine, as far as i know the changes are pretty simple but useful things like a hardened default config and all the telemtry removed.

also i have never heard of this website you linked and i dont think they are an authority when it comes to safety and privacy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 25 Next › Last »