On 22/10/20 10:25 am, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Basically that says that upstream no longer thinks that Firefox is runnable > on RHEL-6/CentOS-6 anymore. I think there was a similar problem at the end > of EL-5 when a 'YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE' fix from Mozilla was released and > while a lot of work was done by Red Hat to get it to work on RHEL-5, some > items (and I really think it was sound and plugins) did not work. At the > tail end of a release, most 'desktop' concerns are very hard to figure out > as 10 year old software API's are rarely kept working by the various > 'upstreams'. > > I want to be clear that I do understand this is causing major issues for > users. I think a lesson learned from EL-5 and EL-6 is that EL releases need > to be clearer on the difference between desktops and servers. There seems > to be a point where desktop utilities fixes are mainly going to be > 'reasonable effort' versus 'guaranteed' to be 100%... usually in the last 6 > months of a release. That way users can plan better that a certain amount > of work is going to be needed by them to continue it working. What confuses me here is why would Red Hat rebase a package so close to EOL. Now that they have they're stuck with either leaving a severly broken firefox or providing a fix less than 6 weeks before EOL. I honestly don't know which way they'll go here but it just seems to me like it was a very poor decision to rebase firefox in RHEL6 so close to EOL to begin with. Peter