On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 05:19, James Pearson <james-p at moving-picture.com> wrote: > Peter wrote: > > > > 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. > > I'm guessing that as Firefox ESR 68 is now a year 'out-of-date' (and no > longer supported by Mozilla), that they wanted to provide a more up to date > version for those that want to continue using EL6 after its EOL ? > > Just a thought, has anyone checked that the Redhat RHEL 6 build of ESR 78 > works or or not? i.e. could it be an issue just with the CentOS build ? > > Someone reported up thread that the RHEL-6 version of ESR78 does not have working sound either. The main issue is that it is hard to debug this just from emails. I would need to get a RHEL-6 system with ESR68 running from command line with debug turned on and look to see what it is talking to on sound. I would then need to do the same with ESR78 to see what it tries to talk to. My guesses is that the API/ABI that the application ESR78 expects the kernel/glibc/etc sound system that GNOME/KDE/kernel etc moved to in the 3.x services and the older 2.6 was deprecated and removed. This would then take someone going through the code changes between 68 and 78 to see what and why it was removed and if it is possible to put back in. > James Pearson > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Stephen J Smoogen.