Solved How long does it take for the latest Firefox appear in the FreeBSD repos ?

[drhowarddrfine]

john_rambo I don't have that version when I tried to update but I didn't try to force it. In any case, that Mozilla's page isn't up to date does not mean anything to FreeBSD.

 

[grahamperrin]

FreeBSD is actually ahead which is really nice. I am really happy about this

☑ I did think of you when I saw Firefox progress from 95.⋯ to 97.⋯ within around fifteen days :-)

but I am confused about FreeBSD's update policy. …

Updates to FreeBSD

In a security context, <https://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup> refers to a February 2015 announcement that might help to put things in context:

• Changes to the FreeBSD Support Model.

Updates to each port within the ports collection

The FreeBSD Project offers a handbook, within which there is (for example) a requirement to update /usr/ports/UPDATING in some situations. To the best of my knowledge, the Project does not express a policy for updates to ports.

Wherever a port has a maintainer, updates are a responsibility of the maintainer (sometimes a group of people with a single e-mail address for maintenance purposes).

For some ports, you'll see an occasional exp-run. Unfortunately, this phrase is not in the FreeBSD Handbook glossary, which is detached from the FreeBSD Handbook; not in the FreeBSD Handbook; not in the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook. A recent example, for print/harfbuzz:

• FreeBSD bug 261605 – (harfbuzz-3.3.0) [exp-run] Update print/harfbuzz to 3.3.0.

Things such as this are not exactly policy, but they do form part of a holistic set of approaches that's described somewhere.

 

[drr]

I have updated packages today and still have firefox-96.0.3,2. I am on FreeBSD 13, using packages from the latest branch. FreshPorts shows that Firefox 97 is available on FreeBSD 14.

 

[john_rambo]

drhowarddrfine drr
I am very sorry I too have Firefox 96 on my FreeBSD 13 box. I have received Firefox 97 on my GhostBSD box.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

I prefer Firefox-ESR and have been using that exclusively the past few years.

I'm running FreeBSD 13.0-RELEASE-p7 now and installed Firefox hrough pkg. There is an update to that in ports, but I'm not vulnerable and see no reason to compile a new version. Mixing ports and pkg something I do now without hesitation and the sky has not fallen yet.

Two W520's updated differently left me with one having a rust vulnerability the other did not encounter. I updated rust through ports today, am using one and the other is online beside it.

 

[grahamperrin]

<https://www.freshports.org/www/firefox/#packages>

I once disagreed with someone on Reddit who rudely insisted that I should attempt to install a package that was demonstrably non-existent at the time. They took pleasure in continuing rudeness whilst ignoring the demonstration. Just awful. I drew a line.

---

john_rambo FYI <https://ci.freebsd.org/> et cetera. I usually begin at:

<https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/>

Click to get <https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/builds?type=package> then 130amd64 in the search box gives us:

• default default (in other words, latest)
• default quarterly

– at the time of writing, both stopped:done following starts on 2022-02-03.

When the build that you require starts, you'll be able to track its progress in detail.

In the meantime, you can click for details of a stopped build. An example:



FreeBSD bugs

256537 – Please publish the list of servers running poudriere by architecture, build system version

260152 – Listings at pkg-status.freebsd.org appear outdated for main-amd64, main-arm64 (FreeBSD:14:aarch64) …

 

[grahamperrin]

… a holistic set of approaches that's described somewhere.

Now, I remember where: <https://www.freebsd.org/administration/>. It doesn't describe approaches, but it's a useful way to view the FreeBSD Project as a whole:



Teams include Port Management and Ports Security.

Charter for the Ports Management Team | The FreeBSD Project

• not dated
• technically, the page history began with the January 2021 migration to Hugo/AsciiDoctor.

 

[grahamperrin]

<https://www.freshports.org/faq.php#vuxml>

<https://www.freshports.org/vuxml.php?package=firefox>

I don't know why 95.0.2_2,2 is not yet marked as vulnerable. I'll seek or raise an issue.

vuxml.freebsd.org/freebsd/pkg-firefox.html nothing more recent than 2019-09-03.

Maybe maintainers of www/firefox no longer use VuXML.

<https://vuxml.freebsd.org/>

 

[skunk]

vuxml.freebsd.org/freebsd/pkg-firefox.html nothing more recent than 2019-09-03.

Seems to be some issue with the Vuxml web script.
Click on "by entry date" or "by modification date".

 

[grahamperrin]

… Click on "by entry date" …

Result: no longer focused on Firefox.

 

[skunk]

Result: no longer focused on Firefox.

Indeed. Didn't look clearly.
Seems like one must look clearly whether vuxml is the correct database for having an eye on a particular application.
Maybe the Firefox/Mozilla porters use the Mozilla respective Firefox advisories to see when it is time to update, so they have no more need for vuxml?