DevHeads.net

Call for testing - Firefox 57

Hi folks,

let's have some fun with upcoming Firefox 57 a.k.a Firefox Quantum. This
is a major Firefox update with key - pleasant and unpleasant - changes:

- fastest than ever with Rust, CSS Stylo, Sandbox...
- new "Photon" look
- and disabled XUL extensions

according to the disruptive nature of the update which is planned to
land in *all* Fedoras at Nov 14 I decided to put the update to the
testing as soon as possible, which mean we have Firefox 57 Beta packages
at update-testing right now.

If you don't consume update-testing regularly you can install Firefox
only by:

# dnf update --enablerepo=updates-testing firefox

and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any
issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2].

Thanks!
ma.

[1] <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/</a>
[2] <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/" title="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/</a>

Comments

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Alexander Ploumistos at 10/12/2017 - 04:16

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Martin Stransky < ... at redhat dot com> wrote:
Hi Martin,

Do you want feedback in bodhi as well?
And do you want to be notified about bugs filed upstream?

I noticed a rendering bug in Stylo, which I filed upstream (#1407690),
but it turns out to be another case of #1391341, which won't be fixed
in Firefox 57 and it's been marked as "fix-optional" for Firefox 58.
However, until this is fixed, fedora wiki (among other websites) will
look a bit messy to anyone using Firefox.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Martin Stransky at 10/12/2017 - 05:57

On 10/12/2017 11:16 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Please use Red Hat bugzilla for Fedora specific issues (not present at
official Mozilla FF57 build). Feedback in bodhi may be user for short notes.

Yes, please CC me there.

Thanks,
ma.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Zbigniew =?utf-... at 10/12/2017 - 04:07

I don't have enough information for a proper bug report yet, but I observed
the following:

I installed firefox 57 from u-t yesterday on a freshly installed F27 box, and hooked
it up to my sync account. On a second machine, I have firefox-56.0-2.fc26.x86_64.
After setting up sync on the new install, firefox started using 100%
CPU. I let it run for 2-3h, then restarted it, and this continued. The sync spinner
was spinning constantly. I tried to fiddle with the checkboxes which specify what
to sync, and at some point sync finished and the CPU usage returned to normal.

But then the firefox on the other machine started hogging the CPU and
syncing without end and even crashed, which normally doesn't happen.
Dunno, maybe there's some incompatibility between FF56 and FF57.

Zbyszek

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Martin Stransky at 10/12/2017 - 03:57

On 10/12/2017 09:57 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
Looks like the legacy addons still can be enabled by
extensions.legacy.enabled pref at about:config [1].

Unfortunately that does not work for the Beta/Release we have at updates
now. I'll try to enable it there but no promise.

ma.

[1] <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57" title="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57">https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57</a>

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Richard W.M. Jones at 10/12/2017 - 03:52

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works,
this means all extensions you have installed will stop working.

Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which
should enable them again, but this does not work in Firefox 57 in
Fedora. Can we please enable that?

(See also the "IMPORTANT" box on this page:
<a href="https://noscript.net/getit#devel" title="https://noscript.net/getit#devel">https://noscript.net/getit#devel</a>)

Rich.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Martin Stransky at 10/12/2017 - 03:58

On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The pref itself does nothing, it has to be patched. I'll try to enable
that for our test package.

ma.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By =?ISO-8859-1?Q?... at 11/06/2017 - 05:50

Dne 12.10.2017 v 10:58 Martin Stransky napsal(a):

Hi Martin,

Is there any prospect to have this enabled? I know you said "no
promise", so I just wondering, because out of 12 extensions I am using,
the F57 is supported just by 3 of them. Actually I could live without
these 3, but hard to live without the remaining 9.

Vít

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Martin Stransky at 11/06/2017 - 05:55

On 11/06/2017 11:50 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Unfortunately now, I have no idea how to enable it.
ma.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By =?ISO-8859-1?Q?... at 11/06/2017 - 06:04

Dne 6.11.2017 v 11:55 Martin Stransky napsal(a):
Thx, will stay with F56 for the foreseeable future ...

Vít

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Sylvia at 11/11/2017 - 14:17

Hi,
I'm using Firefox Quantum in both, Debian and Fedora, and works smoothly.
Thanks!

2017-11-06 12:04 GMT+01:00 Vít Ondruch < ... at redhat dot com>:

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Benjamin Kreuter at 11/16/2017 - 21:59

Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus,
HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we
revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages?

-- Ben

On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Silvia Sánchez wrote:

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Adam Williamson at 11/16/2017 - 23:50

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:59 -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Well, the alternative would be to update those packages and add them to
the update.

(I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems like
a silly idea. But oh well.)

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Till Maas at 11/17/2017 - 18:55

It is useful to get the same addons in all profiles/users on a system
and avoids the necessity to update them everywhere separately.

Kind regards
Till

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Randy Barlow at 11/17/2017 - 13:53

On 11/16/2017 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I personally like the idea of packaging addons, for the same reasons I
like getting Firefox from Fedora rather than directly from Mozilla. Some
example benefits are that it ensures the license is free (I don't know
whether Mozilla enforces licenses to be free or not, but I assume they
do not), and that the plugin came from known sources.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Jan Kratochvil at 11/17/2017 - 16:22

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 19:53:43 +0100, Randy Barlow wrote:
And there is no warning if you click in firefox-57.0-2.fc27.x86_64 on any
add-on that it is installing a non-Fedora-signed add-on.

(Then there is also "Update Add-ons Automatically" turned on by default but
I could not verify whether it really applies on rpm-installed add-ons or not.)

Jan

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 17:00

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Jan Kratochvil <jan. ... at redhat dot com>
wrote:

True, but in order to do that I believe you would have to write a patch to
the core-browser. Not
to mention the fact that Fedora has only a few add-ons packaged. I can't
imagine the headache
that would entail. At worse it would be needlessly alarming to users, at
best it would be a nuisance.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 14:11

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Randy Barlow < ... at fedoraproject dot org

You are correct that not all the addons have free licenses... Lastpass
quickly comes to mind.
Regarding known sources, mozilla does vet all the addons - so if you are
getting
them from mozilla.org they are from a known source.

If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should keep it
up-to-date.

One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within bodhi
for firefox itself.
You should not hold the release of the browser hostage because addon xyz
isn't functioning
correctly. addons aren't core browser functionality.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Benjamin Kreuter at 11/17/2017 - 17:01

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:11 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Again, why allow addons to be packaged at all if we are not prepared to
block browser updates that break addons?

Alternatively, rather than block the updates, at least leave the last
working version in the repository so that users can downgrade to
something more recent. Right now it looks like F26 users can either
accept Firefox 57 and live without their addons, or downgrade to 54;
why not continue making 56 available for users who want it? As far as
I know DNF is capable of handling such scenarios, although maybe there
are other parts of the infrastructure that make this difficult.

In any case, maybe it is worth revisiting some of the relevant policies
on Fedora packaging. This is not a Firefox-specific issue; GNOME,
Emacs, etc. also have packaged addons.

-- Ben

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 17:49

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Benjamin Kreuter <ben. ... at gmail dot com>
wrote:

I don't believe we should be in the business of determining which
applications are
worthy of packaging... if someone wants to do the work, more power to them.

As far as browser updates "breaking" addons... you're inferring a "tail
wagging the dog"
scenario. That just isn't appropriate. Addons aren't core browser
functionality. If they
were, they wouldn't be addons. Same logic would apply to GNOME, etc.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Matthew Miller at 11/17/2017 - 17:20

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:01:32PM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
Should the Firefox 57 package Obsolete those add-on packages which
it... makes obsolete?

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 17:55

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Matthew Miller < ... at fedoraproject dot org>
wrote:

I understand what you're saying there... but that puts the onus on the
Firefox maintainer
to keep track of people who decided to package addons. The respective
maintainers of these
addon packages need to step up and do what is required. This change has
been 2 years in the
making. If they maintained an addon package, they should have known.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Randy Barlow at 11/17/2017 - 15:35

On 11/17/2017 02:11 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
By known sources, I meant known source code, not known developer.

Agreed.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 00:55

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Adam Williamson < ... at fedoraproject dot org

Noscript apparently didn't make the cut - so you'll need to pick an
alternative or be patient. The developer is still
working on it. AdBlockPlus and HTTPS Everywhere are available on the
mozilla site. Another good alternative
for adblock is uBlock Origin - you might want to give it a whirl.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Benjamin Kreuter at 11/17/2017 - 08:38

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:55 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
OK, but why are we packaging these addons at all if that is the answer?
The situation right now is that we have packages that are broken by an
update and a confusing situation for users who try to install those
packages.

-- Ben

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/17/2017 - 12:11

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Benjamin Kreuter <ben. ... at gmail dot com>
wrote:

AFAIK once a package is there, it's up to the particular maintainer to keep
it up-to-date. If they don't, a proven packager
may or may not step up to the task. There isn't a litmus test on whether
or not a package "is worthy" - and I personally
don't believe that would be appropriate anyway.

To be honest, I wasn't aware until recently that any addons had been
packaged - and of the ones that are,
I don't use any of them.

What you could do is open up a bugzilla for the addons which are causing an
issue and request that they be updated
or removed. The maintainer should have been aware of the webextension
situation and taken the appropriate actions. It's
not like this was a surprise.

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Dominik 'Rathan... at 11/20/2017 - 07:03

On Friday, 17 November 2017 at 18:11, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Correct. I packaged or became co-maintainer of all the ones I use.

[...]
What do you think the appropriate action is when FF57 is released
but NoScript compatible with it isn't? Should I just block FF57 update
and wait for the angry mob to show up at my door? It sucks, but even I
think that geting FF57 out was more important than waiting to get FF57
out together a compatible NoScript version. I'll build an updated
package when a new version is released. You're welcome to watch for
updates and add karma in bodhi once the update is submitted.

Regards,
Dominik (mozilla-noscript maintainer)

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

By Gerald B. Cox at 11/20/2017 - 13:35

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <

No, definitely don't block the Fx 57 update. A suggestion could be to:

1. Open a bugzilla ticket on mozilla-noscript explaining that at the
moment it wasn't
compatible with Fx 57+
2. Temporarily modify the spec file so that it couldn't be installed with
Fx 57+ referencing
the bugzilla ticket in the comments

This would work for all extensions which aren't yet ready. When people
checked bugzilla they'd
see the reason and understand it was an upstream issue. They might not
like it, but it is what it is.