Palemoon 28.17.0 binary file name change?

Support and discussions for the x86/x64 Linux version of Pale Moon and specific Linux distribution questions related to the browser.

Moderator: trava90

Forum rules
If your question is about general use of the browser and not specific to Linux, then please use the General Support board.
Post Reply
User avatar
BrianA_MN
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2020-12-20, 16:50

Palemoon 28.17.0 binary file name change?

Post by BrianA_MN » 2020-12-20, 16:59

This is for the Linux file, but I wonder if the other files have the same issue. I notice the binary file was changed to include gtk2 after the x86_64 architecture. Will that remain? I run Slackware Linux and have modified Khronosschoty's build script, because it hasn't been updated since October. It worked without issue until this last update, which failed because of the file name change. FYI. Problem is solved, but will the name change again? Or is Palemoon going to be available in both a gtk2/3 and qt form in the future.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 8538
Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
Location: Skaro

Re: Palemoon 28.17.0 binary file name change?

Post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2020-12-20, 19:03

Not QT but will see gtk3 soon and the extra designation has nothing to do with any system packages. Unfortunatly my good and dear friend Khronosschoty has been MIA for some time.

The change is needed for the generic binaries only to facilitate release engineering and application update services.

System packagers SHOULD only offer binaries using the gtk version (and arch) that is appropriate and predominate for their target distribution and version there in. Since we plan to offer gtk2 and gtk3 builds as generic binaries we need the additional designation.

The preceding is an authoritative answer on policy. The following is not.. yet.

I suppose the repacks as system packages are affected but those aren't true system packages tho. Different classification. Specifically classified as barely legitimate and lazy as hell and should be eliminated if possible in favor of EITHER true system packages built or getting users back on the generic binary with AUS train.

Repacks are an abomination that directly conflicts with both a true system package and our update service enabled generic binaries.
return NS_OK;
Image

Post Reply