On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009-08-25, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Grant Edwards<grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> Were firefox 3.5.2 and xulrunner 1.9.1.2 marked as stable last >>> week and then changed back to unstable this week? >> >> I think so, yes. If you read the Changelog file, it shows this: >> >> 21 Aug 2009; Christian Faulhammer <fa...@gentoo.org> >> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: >> revert all stable keywords >> >> 20 Aug 2009; Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> >> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: >> Stable for HPPA (bug #280393). >> >> 20 Aug 2009; Christian Faulhammer <fa...@gentoo.org> >> mozilla-firefox-3.5.2-r1.ebuild: >> stable x86, security bug 280393 > > I forgot about the ebuild changelog file -- I knew I should > have been able to figure this out somehow. It was the > afternoon/night of the 20th that they got upgraded. Heck, the > packages were probably back to unstable before the all of > builds finished. > > For other packages I wouldn't care much, but flipping back and > forth between "semi-major" versions of firefox/xulrunner is > both fairly disruptive and takes hours and hours of build-time. > > I guess I'll leave them as-is for a while. Firefox 3.5 is > noticably snappier, and downgrading them will take all evening.
If it's working for you, you could always unmask it and at least not have to worry about it trying to force a downgrade onto you. OT: I rarely use Firefox on linux but, on windows, 3.5 takes a longer time to load compared to 3.0 (and 3.0 took longer than 2.x). I'm sure add-ons and update checks are contributing mostly to that, but I remember the good old days when Firefox started up faster than Mozilla Suite. :) I can't remember the reason, but it's a common complaint that Mozilla products are slower in general on Linux (I even saw an article claiming the windows version of FF running in WINE can outperform the native Linux version of FF on the same machine) and I'm certainly one who has experienced that. I don't know if there's some configuration trick I never learned maybe. Seamonkey when using its classic theme has a more responsive UI in general, one of the reasons I still use it despite its clearly inferior javascript/page rendering speed. (The main reason is the MultiZilla extension, I'm so used to it. When Seamonkey 1.x is EOL'ed it'll be a sad day for me.)
