The officially official Devuan Forum!

You are not logged in.

#1 2017-05-20 16:22:14

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Palemoon installation from source

current title: Palemoon installation from source
---
I'm aware of topic on:
Browser: Palemoon!
https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=169
and reference to Palemoon in:
Make a live-CD with live-sdk
https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=551

( as well as the talk that has been there on the Devuan DNG ML, such as:
Life After Firefox 56
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 9c.en.html
)

But that deb package doesn't hold an option to:
How to re-enable key logging to $SSLKEYLOGFILE
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15080
( or more here as well:
Tracking protection and NSS SSL secrets logging (two security questions)?
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=12544 )

In other words, I have to compile my own Palemoon...

And I've been trying that the whole day today.

And I'm stuck.

First of all, I chose to follow:

A linux build framework for Pale Moon
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 8&start=20

And the reason that I'm reporting my issue here is because it might be some package needs tweaking in my Devuan, so it might be someone could envisage the solution here sooner than in Palemoon Forum (but I will ask there as well).

So, the error in the next post, it tells stories to the knowledgeable.


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#2 2017-05-20 16:28:40

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

The build phase went well (I fixed a number of compilation failures that were just because of missing requirements).

But the packaging phase failed, and it failed like this:

 0:00.25 /usr/bin/make -C . -j5 -s -w package
 0:00.27 make: Entering directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild'
 0:00.29 make[1]: Entering directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:00.33 make[2]: Entering directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:00.34 make[3]: Entering directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:06.39 Executing /home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/dist/bin/xpcshell -g /home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/dist/bin/ -a /home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/dist/bin/ -f /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/precompile_cache.js -e precompile_startupcache("resource://gre/");
 0:06.44 out of memory
 0:06.44 Assertion failure: [unhandlable oom] OOM in createJitRuntime, at /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/js/src/jscntxt.cpp:1183
 0:06.45 Traceback (most recent call last):
 0:06.45   File "/home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.py", line 405, in <module>
 0:06.45     main()
 0:06.45   File "/home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.py", line 399, in main
 0:06.45     args.source, gre_path, base)
 0:06.45   File "/home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.py", line 157, in precompile_cache
 0:06.45     errors.fatal('Error while running startup cache precompilation')
 0:06.45   File "/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmsrc/python/mozbuild/mozpack/errors.py", line 101, in fatal
 0:06.45     self._handle(self.FATAL, msg)
 0:06.45   File "/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmsrc/python/mozbuild/mozpack/errors.py", line 96, in _handle
 0:06.45     raise ErrorMessage(msg)
 0:06.45 mozpack.errors.ErrorMessage: Error: Error while running startup cache precompilation
 0:06.47 /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk:36: recipe for target 'stage-package' failed
 0:06.47 make[3]: *** [stage-package] Error 1
 0:06.47 make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:06.47 /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk:81: recipe for target 'make-package' failed
 0:06.48 make[2]: *** [make-package] Error 2
 0:06.48 make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:06.48 /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/config/rules.mk:541: recipe for target 'default' failed
 0:06.48 make[1]: *** [default] Error 2
 0:06.48 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild/browser/installer'
 0:06.48 /home/mr/pmmain/pmsrc/browser/build.mk:9: recipe for target 'package' failed
 0:06.48 make: *** [package] Error 2
 0:06.48 make: Leaving directory '/home/mr/pmmain/native/pmbuild'

I'll gladly provide any additional info necessary.


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#3 2017-05-20 16:40:58

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Asking for help on Pale Moon forum as well:
Building Pale Moon on Devuan fails
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15751


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#4 2017-05-21 16:27:50

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

miroR wrote:

Asking for help on Pale Moon forum as well:
Building Pale Moon on Devuan fails
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15751

And receiving, and also providing some tips at the newest post:
( same title as above, actually it's the same topic wink )
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 51#p114421

But, I think I talked my Palemoon to log SSL-keys... Taken before I posted that, but it's this one, I think:

4523354827de15973a92035031d6ea6a480dc5311650f2c7f6fcec51279535a0  dump_170521_1448_loc.pcap

However, I got to rush now... There're also some not-so-good realizations... But, gotta go.


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#5 2018-02-23 05:23:52

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

I hit issues in my Palemoon compilation.
It might be about gcc compiler versions. Pls. anybody who is familar with those, look up:

Installing uBlock Origin breaks Pale Moon on grsec-hardened kernel
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=18389

which recently I think I feel it might be because of compiler...

And that what I thought was, eventually, a successfuly compilation, is not so, but causes those issues, because it's with gcc-6:

Building Pale Moon on Devuan fails
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph … 20#p135249

(see also previous to that post by Steve, who is a Debian dev, and also he let me know that he did install later with gcc-4.9)

Somewhere in Palemoon talks by their devs, they mention it needs to be compiled with gcc-4.

Question: since there are no gcc-4 available in my Ceres (and I also have Ascii in my sources), I guess I need to add Jessie to my sources to, hopefully, be able to install gcc-4 (likely gcc-4.9).

Is that acceptable? Having all those gcc compilers? Would that mean instability for my system?

Regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#6 2018-02-23 12:07:57

fsmithred
Administrator
Registered: 2016-11-25
Posts: 759  

Re: Palemoon installation from source

It's safe and normal to have multiple versions of gcc. If you upgrade from one relase to another, you will accumulate versions of gcc. In fact, I've usually found it necessary to have multiple versions for properly compiling modules - debian typically ships with a version of gcc that's newer than the one that was used to compile the kernel. The proprietary nvidia installer complains if there's a mis-match of gcc versions.

Looks like there's a newer version of 4.9 in jessie-security:

~$ apt-cache policy gcc-4.8
gcc-4.8:
  Installed: 4.8.4-1
  Candidate: 4.8.4-1
  Version table:
 *** 4.8.4-1 0
        500 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

~$ apt-cache policy gcc-4.9
gcc-4.9:
  Installed: 4.9.2-10
  Candidate: 4.9.2-10+deb8u1
  Version table:
     4.9.2-10+deb8u1 0
        500 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-security/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-security/main amd64 Packages
 *** 4.9.2-10 0
        500 http://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Offline

#7 2018-02-24 13:39:36

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

fsmithred wrote:

It's safe and normal to have multiple versions of gcc.

If you upgrade from one relase to another, you will accumulate versions of gcc.

Yes, but you will lose the gcc's that do not belong to your release, such as I lost gcc-4 and g++-4 that do not belong to testing/unstable, i.e. Ascii/Ceres.

In fact, I've usually found it necessary to have multiple versions for properly compiling modules - debian typically ships with a version of gcc that's newer than the one that was used to compile the kernel.

Interesting to here that.

The proprietary nvidia installer complains if there's a mis-match of gcc versions.

Looks like there's a newer version of 4.9 in jessie-security:

~$ apt-cache policy gcc-4.8
gcc-4.8:
  Installed: 4.8.4-1
  Candidate: 4.8.4-1
  Version table:
 *** 4.8.4-1 0
[...]
~$ apt-cache policy gcc-4.9
gcc-4.9:
  Installed: 4.9.2-10
  Candidate: 4.9.2-10+deb8u1
  Version table:
     4.9.2-10+deb8u1 0
[...]

Yep! That's what I noted in:
Pale Moon and uBlock0 on a grsec-hardened kernel 3
https://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/cap/ … ock0-3.php
at the top.
I also write there that you devs of Devuan/(and Debian) need to be commended for good maintenace at:
[ same title, just sequence number 1 ]
https://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/cap/ … ock0-1.php

smile

Last edited by miroR (2018-02-24 13:43:00)


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#8 2018-02-24 14:57:03

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Here's the moral of this stage of my compiling Pale Moon from source.
I previously had removed Jessie sources, in /etc/apt is the sources.list that I needed for the compilation of this stage, i.e. to get gcc/g++ of version 4.9):

# diff -u BAK/sources.list_180203_1908 /etc/apt/sources.list
--- BAK/sources.list_180203_1908        2017-12-01 15:56:21.000000000 +0000
+++ /etc/apt/sources.list       2018-02-23 09:08:16.861440857 +0000
[...]
@@ -32,3 +32,11 @@
 # Devuan repositories
 deb tor+https://packages.devuan.org/merged ceres main contrib non-free
 deb-src tor+https://packages.devuan.org/merged ceres main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-backports main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/devuan/ jessie-proposed main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/devuan/ jessie-proposed-backports main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/devuan/ jessie-proposed-security main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-proposed-updates main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-security main contrib non-free
+deb tor+https://pkgmaster.devuan.org/merged/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free

IOW, I needed to add back in the Jessie sources, and then after the usual apt-get update was able to do:

apt-get install gcc-4.9 g++-4.9 --install-recommends |& tee ~mr/LOG_/apt-get_install_gcc-4.9_g++-4.9--install-recommends_$(date +%y%m%d_%H%M%S)_O

( that was the real command, I simply hit Ctrl-R in my xterm terminal to search in the history, and then typed "apt-g" and there it popped up for me to show it to you, gentle reader )
And then I got:

# ls -l ~mr/LOG_/apt-get_install_gcc-4.9_g++-4.9--install-recommends_180223_093129_O
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4075 2018-02-23 09:32 /home/mr/LOG_/apt-get_install_gcc-4.9_g++-4.9--install-recommends_180223_093129_O
#

And it looks:
# cat ~mr/LOG_/apt-get_install_gcc-4.9_g++-4.9--install-recommends_180223_093129_O  >> This-file-that-I-prepare-for-posting-but-cut-short-a-lot

[...]
The following additional packages will be installed:
  cpp-4.9 gcc-4.9-base libasan1 libcloog-isl4 libgcc-4.9-dev libisl10
  libstdc++-4.9-dev
Suggested packages:
[...]
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  cpp-4.9 g++-4.9 gcc-4.9 libasan1 libcloog-isl4 libgcc-4.9-dev libisl10
  libstdc++-4.9-dev
The following packages will be upgraded:
  gcc-4.9-base
1 upgraded, 8 newly installed, 0 to remove and 174 not upgraded.
[...]
Running external script: '/usr/bin/test -x /sbin/paxrat && /sbin/paxrat 1>/dev/null || true'
Running external script: 'if [ -x /usr/bin/rkhunter ] && grep -qiE '^APT_AUTOGEN=.?(true|yes)' /etc/default/rkhunter; then /usr/share/rkhunter/scripts/rkhupd.sh; fi'

I thought I'd post this just so if some other Devuaner/Debianers comese across a similar issue.

Regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#9 2018-02-25 21:07:36

greenjeans
Member
Registered: 2017-04-07
Posts: 424  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Or you could just install the .deb package, seems much simpler.


https://sourceforge.net/projects/vuu-do/
Vuu-do GNU/Linux, minimal 64 and 32 bit Devuan-based openbox and mate systems to build on, maximal versions if you prefer your linux fully-loaded.

Please donate to support Devuan and init freedom! https://devuan.org/os/donate

Offline

#10 2018-02-26 05:10:30

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

greenjeans wrote:

Or you could just install the .deb package, seems much simpler.

What to say about a comment like that!
Readers without (own-created) prejudice, have a look at:
Firefox-ESR, Palemoon, Apulse on Jessie
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … fd.en.html
where our leader explicitly asks:

jaromil wrote:

I guess that if someone here feels
like making a Devuan maintained package of palemoon many would be
happy. I'm not sure I'd stop compiling it from git tags myself, but
well good to have it packaged properly.

and decide for yourself whether my efforts are maybe (be it only) minally useful in that direction?
I didn't reply to that question my Jaromil because I know that maintaing a package of that importance and value takes much more yet than I am currently able to achieve, but I took good notice.
But I'd really prefer no byke-shedding remarks, pls.
I don't want any flames, and if anybody does, you'll be left without a reply from me. I simply try to use my time for what is useful.

Regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#11 2018-02-26 07:17:18

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Palemoon is actually now available.

# apt-cache search palemoon
palemoon - Firefox-based, efficient and easy to use web browser
# apt-get -s install palemoon
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
palemoon is already the newest version (27.7.2~repack-1).
The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
  libpoppler68
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove it.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 80 not upgraded.
#

But that can only be since very recently that it is in Devuan.
Previously, Pale Moon just wasn't available in Devuan.
But great that it is now!
I've learned a lot here, and my experience sure might be useful for others with similar issues, anyway.
Also, is it not actually originally the Debian package, or is it originally Devuan maintained as Jaromil had suggested it would be great to have, anybody?
(Not that originally Debian maintained means anything bad.)
(Also I won't be installing it to be able to find out easily, even though binary Pale Moon, just as Firefox, usually have SSL-key logging enabled, and not disabled. I won't because I'm happy with what I conf'ed and compiled.)

Regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#12 2018-02-26 10:27:28

fsmithred
Administrator
Registered: 2016-11-25
Posts: 759  

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Sorry to say that palemoon is not in the devuan repo. You're getting a false positive.

Your system:

palemoon is already the newest version (27.7.2~repack-1).

My system:

palemoon is already the newest version.
$ apt-cache policy palemoon
palemoon:
  Installed: 27.3.0~repack-1
  Candidate: 27.3.0~repack-1
  Version table:
 *** 27.3.0~repack-1 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Different versions, but in each case it's the newest version that apt can see.

Offline

#13 2018-02-26 14:52:21

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

fsmithred wrote:

Sorry to say that palemoon is not in the devuan repo. You're getting a false positive.

But why is apt not saying it does not have it in the repo?

Your system:

palemoon is already the newest version (27.7.2~repack-1).

My system:

palemoon is already the newest version.
$ apt-cache policy palemoon
palemoon:
  Installed: 27.3.0~repack-1
  Candidate: 27.3.0~repack-1
  Version table:
 *** 27.3.0~repack-1 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Different versions, but in each case it's the newest version that apt can see.

A pretty old version (too old, I'd think), where and when did you get it?

Apt has to see  that palemoon is installed, because it's installed, in my case, and probably in your case too, with /dpkg -i <the-deb-pacakege>.

And surely, I scoured all the /var/lib/apt/lists and marginally in some lz4 compressed files (such as, this is the concrete decompression line:

lz4cat pkgmaster.devuan.org_merged_dists_ascii_main_Contents-amd64.lz4 > pkgmaster.devuan.org_merged_dists_ascii_main_Contents-amd64

), I was able to find string palemoon (and such), but it's not about the package palemoon...

Yeah, it's not in the Devuan repo. And I don't think it's in the Debian repo either, only in OBS, the Suse repo, where Steven Pusser maintains it (and he does a good job, for that).

Right, regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#14 2018-02-26 17:11:18

fsmithred
Administrator
Registered: 2016-11-25
Posts: 759  

Re: Palemoon installation from source

I downloaded the package last March (Wow. Good thing I don't use it.) from the palemoon website, and I think they redirected me to Steve Pusser's repo. I'll do that again right now.

Note that the output of apt-cache policy does not show the package as coming from a repository. It just lists /var/lib/dpkg/status instead. It know the package is there, but it can't tell where it came from. Packages installed with dpkg and packages installed from a repo that is no longer in the sources will show up that way.

Offline

#15 2018-04-03 19:12:04

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Ta-dah! This topic opens a way for a new one, more advanced, hopefully...
Look up, esp. admins, this repo is working, but only just, and with manual tweaking:

https://www.croatiafidelis.hr/foss/dev1miro/

I have (with manual adjusting in /var/lib/apt/lists managed to apt-get install my:

$ palemoon --version
Moonchild Productions Pale Moon 27.8.3
$

from it.
Here the log how it went:

$ apt-get install palemoon
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be upgraded:
  palemoon
[...]

Oh, that doesn't belong here... Pls. go to:
A repo serving Pale Moon
https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=1972

Regards!


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#16 2018-04-03 20:21:30

chillfan
Member
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 54  

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Nice posts but I should point to this though (for your own benefit) which recently came up on the maling list.

https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

It would seem it's best to rebrand or disable branding when packaging, especially if you want to make changes to the build process.

Also, I notice you mentioned grsecurity (the unofficial forward ports I guess). When I last looked they can't yet integrate meltdown/kpti, is much different there now?

Last edited by chillfan (2018-04-03 20:23:02)

Offline

#17 2018-04-04 10:50:37

miroR
Member
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Registered: 2016-11-30
Posts: 199  
Website

Re: Palemoon installation from source

The post that miroR (me) posted here, and which was here for only 1/2 hour or so, is still complete, but is pasted over, manually, by the aforesaid forum user, to new topic:

Legal on Pale Moon potential packaging and distribution
https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=1974


Regards!

Last edited by miroR (2018-04-04 11:17:47)


Devs/testers/users of FOSS, what might be ahead for GNU/Linux after we lost PaX Team and spender? spender wrote:
https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic … 699#p17127
Google made the choice to engage in underhanded competition against us with our own code...
grsecurity ripoff by Google, w/ Linus approval https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … 4b.en.html

Offline

#18 2018-04-04 14:28:52

chillfan
Member
Registered: 2016-12-01
Posts: 54  

Re: Palemoon installation from source

Also, thanks for your efforts. I'm not so good with packaging myself, but I will try to provide some input at some point.

Offline

Board footer