[CentOS] Firefox 78 under CentOS 6 -- no sound?

Wed Oct 21 21:41:11 UTC 2020
Styma, Robert (Nokia - US/Phoenix) <robert.styma at nokia.com>

> 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.

Upgrades for users would be a lot easier if the "upgrade" option on the install was more of an upgrade.   I have seen the arguments on how Ubuntu upgrades leave unneeded packages littering the machine.  However, at a minimum I would think an upgrade should keep /etc/hosts, /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, the list if repos in use.   This would at least put the machine in a usable state from the get go.  Saving a list of the applications which would not be reloaded as part of the upgrade would also be useful.  It would at least make it possible to get a running start at rebuilding the users environment.   My issues come from the conversion of CentOS 4 and 5 to 6.   Maybe it is all better going to CentOS 8 (wishful thinking?)

CentOS mailing list
CentOS at centos.org