Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

corenominal · 2011-01-19 04:51:41

Does anyone have any objections/concerns to me uploading Iceweasel 4.0 Beta 9 packages into the Statler repository?

Iceweasel 4 is a potential replacement for Google Chrome, so it would be good to get some testing and feedback on it. smile

Note: if I do this, anyone using the current 3.5 version of Iceweasel will have their browser upgraded.

cypher · 2011-01-19 05:00:00

I have been testing the beta version of Firefox4, If this is the same please add it. I've used #! for quite a while but never bothered to register until now. Thank you for the hard work! Statler rocks.

corenominal · 2011-01-19 05:16:19

cypher wrote:

I have been testing the beta version of Firefox4, If this is the same please add it.

I am not sure if it is the same version you have been testing? The Iceweasel packages I am proposing to include come from http://mozilla.debian.net/

P.S. Welcome to the forums! smile

logs_con · 2011-01-19 05:44:03

No objections here,

I've heard good things about the upcoming version of Firefox/Iceweasel.

A few more people using/testing the beta could be helpful to the project too.

Cheers,

T

GuruX · 2011-01-19 08:12:50

I'm running FF4 b9 on another computer. Works fine, except for search (ctrl+f) feature. It seems to only find text that isn't hyperlinked.

corenominal · 2011-01-19 08:15:40

GuruX wrote:

I'm running FF4 b9 on another computer. Works fine, except for search (ctrl+f) feature. It seems to only find text that isn't hyperlinked.

Seems to be working fine in Iceweasel. smile

GuruX · 2011-01-19 08:19:58

corenominal wrote:

GuruX wrote:
I'm running FF4 b9 on another computer. Works fine, except for search (ctrl+f) feature. It seems to only find text that isn't hyperlinked.
Seems to be working fine in Iceweasel.

Oh, great! It seems to be fixed in B9 of FF aswell. Woho!

+1 vote from me then!

Last edited by GuruX (2011-01-19 08:20:14)

nore · 2011-01-19 08:35:06

corenominal wrote:

Iceweasel 4 is a potential replacement for Google Chrome...

smile

Nothing in particular against Chrome (except perhaps /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list) but I'd use Iceweasel or Firefox as my primary browser anyway.

Sergio17771 · 2011-01-19 09:58:52

It's planned that debian will rebrand iceweasel back to the firefox brand in mid 2011

rizzo · 2011-01-19 10:48:19

No objections here smile

rizzo · 2011-01-19 10:49:51

Sergio17771 wrote:

It's planned that debian will rebrand iceweasel back to the firefox brand in mid 2011

Could we get a link to confirm that plan?

vicshrike · 2011-01-19 14:35:54

no objection, please do!!!!! smile

snowpine · 2011-01-19 14:37:16

I think it is a good idea looking towards the future. I don't really want to still be using 3.5 in 2 years' time when Squeeze is mature. smile

anonymous · 2011-01-19 14:40:22

I have no objections to Iceweasel however I generally prefer not using alpha/beta/rc programs. I'd rather wait for it to go final.

Feared · 2011-01-19 14:44:53

No objections, I wouldn't mind testing out Ice Weasel 4. Although I use Chromium religiously at the moment. smile

#1936 · 2011-01-19 15:00:42

no objections whatsoever...been using iceweasel 4b from http://glandium.org/blog/ and so far i can't seem to think of any crash/problem.

however, as you might be aware, since 4.0-b8 there's a dependencies problem that made me go and get some packages from experimental [see dependencies for package xulrunner2.0]...apart from that all is good!

cxexa · 2011-01-19 15:07:30

Sounds like a great idea to me.

corenominal · 2011-01-19 15:48:38

Thank you for all the responses. If there are still no objections by tomorrow morning, I will upload the packages. smile

Unia · 2011-01-19 16:03:20

Objection! lol

Nah, I would like to test it out and see if it will outperform Google Chrome. Give it a shot!

Anaconda · 2011-01-19 16:04:56

+1 vote here.

Looks like most CrunchBang users are not overly conservative. It's easy enough to have a spare browser on board if any temporary glitches happen anyway.

Morley · 2011-01-19 16:37:06

Anaconda wrote:

+1 vote here.
Looks like most CrunchBang users are not overly conservative. It's easy enough to have a spare browser on board if any temporary glitches happen anyway.

I agree about the extra browsers. Honestly, I prefer Chrome, and will most likely stick with that. That having been said, I have no objections to including the Iceweasel 4.0 packages. I am playing around with Firefox 4 beta and it seems pretty slick. I will, as usual, tweak what applications/browsers I use as the situation calls for.

rabbitofdeath · 2011-01-19 17:13:38

+1 I think its a great idea

root · 2011-01-19 17:14:55

corenominal wrote:

[...]I will upload the packages.

Go for it. cool

/

johnraff · 2011-01-19 17:20:31

I wonder if it would be possible/desirable to give the iceweasel 4 package a different name, eg iceweasel4? That way it might be able to coexist with iceweasel 3.5 in case someone needed the stable version as well. Apart from possible bugs, there are still many extensions which haven't yet been upgraded to work with iceweasel/firefox 4.

That said, I'm looking forward to Firefox 4 and happy to try iceweasel 4 beta on my "non production" laptop. smile

Last edited by johnraff (2011-01-19 17:22:22)

rikhardfloss · 2011-01-19 17:23:03

no objections here Corenominal, in fact i've been testing FF4.09pre as i said before, it's not my default browser right now (i use GNUIcecat 3.6.13) because there are a lot of extensions i need that still don't work with the new version.

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2011-01-19 04:51:41

Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#2 2011-01-19 05:00:00

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#3 2011-01-19 05:16:19

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#4 2011-01-19 05:44:03

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#5 2011-01-19 08:12:50

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#6 2011-01-19 08:15:40

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#7 2011-01-19 08:19:58

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#8 2011-01-19 08:35:06

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#9 2011-01-19 09:58:52

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#10 2011-01-19 10:48:19

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#11 2011-01-19 10:49:51

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#12 2011-01-19 14:35:54

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#13 2011-01-19 14:37:16

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#14 2011-01-19 14:40:22

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#15 2011-01-19 14:44:53

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#16 2011-01-19 15:00:42

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#17 2011-01-19 15:07:30

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#18 2011-01-19 15:48:38

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#19 2011-01-19 16:03:20

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#20 2011-01-19 16:04:56

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#21 2011-01-19 16:37:06

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#22 2011-01-19 17:13:38

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#23 2011-01-19 17:14:55

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#24 2011-01-19 17:20:31

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

#25 2011-01-19 17:23:03

Re: Objections to Iceweasel 4 packages?

Board footer