Beartooth wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:37:44 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
Beartooth wrote:
[....]
Need these things be?
Is there a way I've missed to make "yum update firefox" work? Is there
hope it will in FC5 -- or even FC6?
"yum update firefox" works fine for me on FC4.
Is the problem that you are seeing that firefox is not being updated to
version 1.5? The reason for that is that no official Fedora package for
Firefox 1.5 on FC4 has been released (at least not yet). That's why yum
doesn't pick it up.
Oho! and also aha! So there *is* hope; I kinda thunkit ... Many thanks!
[....]
As for why there isn't a Firefox 1.5 upgrade for FC4, I don't know the
answer.
Gee, and I'd've sworn I saw some ballyhoo weeks and weeks ago to the
effect that 1.5 was a big security fix. Worse, I *thought* what I read
said it wasn't for once just another MS problem, but something *in*
Firefox. Maybe I better go on avoiding it a while yet. What I have
is 1.0.7. Thanks!
Btw, in case the security hole does depend on MS -- is it worth installing
a passel of extensions, and counting on 1.5 when it eventually appears to
adopt and update them? If not, and if 1.5 is anywhere near the offing,
I'll just wait, and do it after I get that. (I've been running that
browser since about phoenix 0.4, and like it -- with lots of extensions;
but I've had to go get them over again from scratch at least once, and
life is too short to do it again without need.)
If there is a real security issue with firefox 1.0.x (I don't know if
there is or not), I'd expect an FC4 update that either:
(a) updated to a later version that fixed the problem, or
(b) included a backported fix in the existing version
The choice between the two largely depends on what the impact of a
significant version upgrade would be on users/other applications that
depend on the package. If there are significant plugin incompatibilities
between firefox 1.0.x and 1.5.x then I'd expect the second option to be
chosen if possible.
Paul.
