Firefox 1.0.3 Backported [Archive]

jdong

April 25th, 2005, 09:37 PM

OK, I got the latest FF 1.0.3 from Sid and backported. It's currently uploading as Revision 125 to the tree , and will take a bit of time.

A few things to remember:

This is a [b]Debian style Firefox 1.0.3, which may not match with Ubuntu's Firefox. Watch for settings/plugins that have trouble (I don't expect any)
GNOME integration is unavailable -- those GNOME2 style file selectors aren't in Debian's source, and as a result will NOT be available for Firefox. Besides, I found them unstable [segfaults when using autocomplete] and bothersome [KDE fan here :)]
Please test and report back.

jdong

April 25th, 2005, 09:58 PM

Confirmed by me to work :)

Turin Turambar

April 25th, 2005, 10:00 PM

But there's a gnome-support 1.0.3 package available on debian site?!

jdong

April 25th, 2005, 10:02 PM

The firefox-gnome-support package integrates Firefox as a GNOME browser by allowing it to be set as the default browser and associating html files and URL's with Firefox from Nautilus.

The f-g-s package does NOT provide the GNOME2 file selector dialogs -- that's compiled into the mozilla-firefox package. It add unnecessary GNOME dependencies into Firefox.

TravisNewman

April 25th, 2005, 10:10 PM

Personally, I'm happy that it doesn't have the gnome2 file selector dialogs. I love gnome, but between warty and hoary, those dialogs got screwy, as I've posted elsewhere. Trying this out now :)

Virtual DarKness

April 25th, 2005, 10:24 PM

Personally, I'm happy that it doesn't have the gnome2 file selector dialogs. I love gnome, but between warty and hoary, those dialogs got screwy, as I've posted elsewhere. Trying this out now :)
me too ;)

bye,
Giovanni.

TravisNewman

April 25th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Huh. All the fonts seem to look better in this one.

NeoChaosX

April 25th, 2005, 10:46 PM

Wait, I just did an apt-get update, and I can't upgrade. Is it only avalible in staging, or what?

ow50

April 25th, 2005, 11:03 PM

Epiphany doesn't work anymore.

$ epiphany
epiphany: error while loading shared libraries: libgtkembedmoz.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

It can be verified with that locate that the file indeed doesn't exist anymore after upgrading.

I built firefox from the same debian source myself earlier today and had the same problem.

Note that the latest version of Epiphany is 1.6.2 while Hoary has 1.6.1. Also, Ubuntu's Epiphany depends on mozilla-firefox while Debian's Epiphany seems to depend on mozilla-browser.

TravisNewman

April 25th, 2005, 11:14 PM

Same here-- no more epiphany. I DO have mozilla-browser installed as well.

Epiphany had the same security issue though, any chance of getting that one backported jdong?
No benefit to me, as I only have epiphany for testing things, but others who want to use both may need it.

jdong

April 25th, 2005, 11:26 PM

1.0.3 is still Staging. As shown by the last two people, there are issues (reverse dependency breakage) with this backport.

Ok, I'm investigating on the Epiphany issue. It seems to be a classic reverse dependency breakage, but usually you don't get missing stuff in that case.

I'll also try to get the latest Epiphany while I'm at it!

XDevHald

April 25th, 2005, 11:31 PM

Some one call the webulances;! I think we have a connector down on the backports!!!

This thing is SO SLOW! lol, it's running anywhere from 915 bs to 1400 bs, that is REALLY slow.

I think I have enough to time to go out to eat for a few hours lol, that's not e ajoke either :p

ubuntu-geek

April 26th, 2005, 12:08 AM

ubuntu-geek

April 26th, 2005, 12:12 AM

Do you notice any speedy increase now?

XDevHald

April 26th, 2005, 12:16 AM

Do you notice any speedy increase now?

Yeah :grin: much better! but...

I have this ---> Error W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://us.archive.ubuntu.com hoary/universe Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/us.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_hoary_universe_ binary-i386_Packages)

I'll let you slide on this error, for now [-X

jdong

April 26th, 2005, 01:50 AM

Ok, there appears to be a "mozilla-firefox-dev" package that Ubuntu's Firefox package creates.

Now, we have some options:

(1) Find the patchcode responsible for generating the mozilla-firefox-dev package

(2) Forcibly apply the Ubuntu 1.0.2 patch onto Firefox 1.0.3, and worry about build issues as they come.

(3) Wait for 1.0.3 in Breezy.

In the meantime, what should we do with this Firefox package:

(1) Keep it in staging and don't promote it, as it breaks Epiphany and any other m-f-dev reliant packages.
(2) Pull it from staging
(3) Promote it because the security benefits outweigh the broken browser

I'm also considering adding "Conflicts: epiphany-browser" to the control file, which would remove epiphany if you upgraded to this backport.

jdong

April 26th, 2005, 01:56 AM

I've gone with forced patching for now.... Rebuilding.

Turin Turambar

April 26th, 2005, 02:12 AM

After the mess I had with FF when manually tried to install debian packages, I decide to stick with 1.0.2....

jdong

April 26th, 2005, 02:47 AM

I'm pleased to announce that patching 1.0.2 Ubuntu diffs onto 1.0.3 did compile cleanly. I'm currently uploading this backport to the Staging area for testing.

I anticipate this will be just as stable as Firefox 1.0.2 official. Please also advise if epiphany is still broken.

Currently uploading, may take a few minutes before it hits the server.

TravisNewman

April 26th, 2005, 03:29 AM

Well, it seems to work quite well, and epiphany now works.

jdong

April 26th, 2005, 11:53 AM

Yep, likewise. I'll promote this today if nobody complains.

ow50

April 26th, 2005, 01:07 PM

Works well, Epiphany too.

donar73

April 26th, 2005, 03:39 PM

Works well for me too! \\:D/ (Haven't installed Epiphany - so I couldn't test this)

Thank's alot for your great work!!!

jdong

April 27th, 2005, 12:31 AM

bumped to stable. Security fixes do not have to go through the mandatory 7-day staging period. All you Hoary users, your Firefox is safe to use once again :) :)

XDevHald

April 27th, 2005, 12:42 AM

Ah, such a lovely day for backports, great job as usual jdong!!

Turin Turambar

April 27th, 2005, 03:32 AM

Great job indeed! Thanks! :)

IdoMcFly

April 27th, 2005, 10:25 AM

I've tried the Secunia test and it seems to be ok though I got "XXXXXX" output in the test. (In windows, 1.0.3 don't output anything)

jdong

April 27th, 2005, 03:49 PM

Hmm, I have no idea what causes that.

Does anyone else have this issue?

Turin Turambar

April 27th, 2005, 05:25 PM

I also got a XXXX displayed...

wolovids

April 27th, 2005, 05:34 PM

IdoMcFly

April 27th, 2005, 06:15 PM

ok my bad : I got *white* XXX on XP... :D

Turin Turambar

April 27th, 2005, 08:09 PM

If the bug is fixed, you WILL get XXXXX outputted. Otherwise, you'd see random printable characters from firefox's memory.

I'm using Firefox 1.0.3 under WinXP right now and it displays XXXXX's.

In other words, the bug is fixed in the backport. Things seem to be working great. Thanks jdong!

But I also got XXXXX displayed in 1.0.2 ! :?

I just opened the JavaScript console and found this message:

XML Parsing Error: no element found
Location: jar:resource:///chrome/toolkit.jar!/content/mozapps/update/updates.xml
Line Number 1, Column 1:

What is that? Maybe that's why I had XXXX displayed in 1.0.2.

wolovids

April 27th, 2005, 08:52 PM

But I also got XXXXX displayed in 1.0.2 ! :?

I just opened the JavaScript console and found this message:

XML Parsing Error: no element found
Location: jar:resource:///chrome/toolkit.jar!/content/mozapps/update/updates.xml
Line Number 1, Column 1:

What is that? Maybe that's why I had XXXX displayed in 1.0.2.
Try it a few times. After a while it'll change and start outputting stuff in Firefox's memory.

The XML parsing error (I believe) is an error due to the removal of the automatic update mechanism in ubuntu/debian's build of Firefox. It's nothing to worry about.

deathburger

April 28th, 2005, 05:40 AM

All you Hoary users, your Firefox is safe to use once again

And Warty? I thought backports for it were going to continue...?

deathburger

May 11th, 2005, 01:13 AM

And Warty? I thought backports for it were going to continue...?
Anyone? Bueller?

jdong

May 12th, 2005, 12:22 AM

Anyone? Bueller?

I made it quite clear before that Backports will only be provided for the latest stable Ubuntu release. I don't have the time to do twice the amount of compiling, not mentioning that new library dependencies make it increasingly more difficult to support older releases. Sorry.

deathburger

May 12th, 2005, 12:28 AM

I made it quite clear before that Backports will only be provided for the latest stable Ubuntu release. I don't have the time to do twice the amount of compiling, not mentioning that new library dependencies make it increasingly more difficult to support older releases. Sorry.
1.0.4 compiled fine and dandy for me. And no need to get pissy with me about it, I wasn't rude to you.

Thank you for the reply though, at least I know the official support stance, that being I'm on my own.

jdong

May 12th, 2005, 12:33 AM

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude :)

You got to understand, I simply don't have the time to support two releases.

deathburger

May 12th, 2005, 12:46 AM

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude :)

You got to understand, I simply don't have the time to support two releases.
No problem. I don't mind doing FF myself, I just needed to know what the Warty backports stand on it was before replacing it with one I've compiled... until I can upgrade to the newer Ubuntu release, that is.

In case I haven't mentioned it previously, the backports rock. Thanks. :)

kleeman

May 12th, 2005, 02:09 AM

Sorry if this has already been covered: Today there was a security release in Ubuntu for 1.0.2 fixing two "critical" vulnerabilities. As I understand it 1.0.3 in backports is also affected by these vulnerabilities. Will this security fix be implemented in backports or for safety should we revert to the updated 1.0.2?

nocturn

May 12th, 2005, 07:53 AM

The security fixes that went into 1.0.2 where taken from 1.0.3, so you are fine.
It seems 1.0.4 released today (fixing a new, currently non-exploitable issue).

hda

May 12th, 2005, 11:32 AM

The security fixes that went into 1.0.2 where taken from 1.0.3, so you are fine.
It seems 1.0.4 released today (fixing a new, currently non-exploitable issue).

Not quite. With the current version in backports that exploit here (http://www.heise.de/security/dienste/browsercheck/demos/nc/mozdemo3.shtml) still works. :-(

nocturn

May 12th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Not quite. With the current version in backports that exploit here (http://www.heise.de/security/dienste/browsercheck/demos/nc/mozdemo3.shtml) still works. :-(

Well, I didn't understand much of it (it's in German), but this seems the vuln with the software install in FF. This issue was recenty discovered after the 1.0.3 release (is not exploitable any more thanks to the mozilla.org site maintainers).

The fix for this is in 1.0.4 (released today).

Jdong will probably have a backport within days.

deathburger

May 12th, 2005, 02:27 PM

The fix for this is in 1.0.4 (released today).
I'm using a CVS build, which I pulled just a couple days ago.. still vulnerable. Maybe something made it in in the last second?

fishfork

May 12th, 2005, 03:52 PM

I'm using the backported 1.0.3 at the moment. Automatic Update has just told me there are two new packages available of libnspr4 and libnss3, which seem to be related to firefox. Is it OK to install them, or will they cause proplems?

Ben