Well it do fix *many* security issues on armv7hl.

For the other arches, what is different from the previous version, 128.12.0-1.1.mga9 ?

Component: RPM Packages => Security
QA Contact: (none) => security
CC: (none) => fri

Jose

what are you asking for?
That we update our FF to what you indicate?
What about Cauldron?
Tell us more about the Debian patch: to what?

CC: (none) => lewyssmith
Assignee: qa-bugs => bugsquad

(In reply to Morgan Leijström from comment #2)
> Well it do fix *many* security issues on armv7hl.
> 
> For the other arches, what is different from the previous version,
> 128.12.0-1.1.mga9 ?

(In reply to Lewis Smith from comment #3)
> Jose
> 
> what are you asking for?
> That we update our FF to what you indicate?
> What about Cauldron?
> Tell us more about the Debian patch: to what?

The packages for all the architectures must build with the same src.rpm , I think is almost the same was done when firefox couldn't be built for i586 bug#33607 , the difference is was not be done for the current version, was fixed in posterior release

The debian patch provides a way to override, by defining an environment variable, the Link Time Optimization in the build of the crates (rust code) included in the firefox & thunderbird sources, the values could be off (not like to the build process), thin, fat & full, what I understand was causing the fail for arm is one component was using the fat optimization and that consume lot of memory.

From the point of view of packaging, I decide to not condition the change to arm to see how impact in the build process (reported a total of 4hrs)

So the packages should be tested in 32/64 bit to see if not produce performance or other side effect, even if the mentioned change was not done the packages should be tested

Last the armv7hl packages are just a reference for sysadmin when the bug is validated we just need to test the binary

OK I now use new version on x86_64, will report later.

I see a two hour difference in the build time from cauldron with the mageia 9 version, so If nobody find a drawback, I'll let the spec as is, and if latter other packager want to apply just for arm will be fine for me.

(In reply to katnatek from comment #7)

> For the rest of architectures, this is just a bump in the release
> subversion, making all the architectures build from the same src.rpm

Then I suggest we try to skip pushing that to users (release updates repo)
It is a waste of bandwidth, and could irritate.
 
We should still test on all arches to make sure it works OK so we know the new build procedure do not harm.

MGA9-64 server Plasma Wayland on Compaq H000SB.
No installation issues.
Cann't find anything wrong with the new version.

CC: (none) => herman.viaene

MGA9-64 Plasma on HP Pavilion. No installation issues, looking good so far.

CC: (none) => andrewsfarm

(In reply to Morgan Leijström from comment #10)
> (In reply to katnatek from comment #7)
> 
> > For the rest of architectures, this is just a bump in the release
> > subversion, making all the architectures build from the same src.rpm
> 
> Then I suggest we try to skip pushing that to users (release updates repo)
> It is a waste of bandwidth, and could irritate.
>  
> We should still test on all arches to make sure it works OK so we know the
> new build procedure do not harm.

I can extend the text to explain why is necessary, and 
a blog post will be published about this

If is the decision not sent to updates and wait next firefox update is fine for me

Just put all together

RPMS:

firefox-128.12.0-1.4.mga9

firefox-af-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-an-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ar-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ast-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-az-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-be-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-bg-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-bn-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-br-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-bs-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ca-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-cs-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-cy-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-da-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-de-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-el-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-en_CA-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-en_GB-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-en_US-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-eo-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-es_AR-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-es_CL-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-es_ES-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-es_MX-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-et-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-eu-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-fa-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ff-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-fi-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-fr-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-fur-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-fy_NL-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ga_IE-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-gd-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-gl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-gu_IN-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-he-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-hi_IN-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-hr-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-hsb-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-hu-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-hy_AM-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ia-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-id-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-is-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-it-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ja-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ka-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-kab-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-kk-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-km-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-kn-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ko-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-lij-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-lt-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-lv-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-mk-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-mr-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ms-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-my-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-nb_NO-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-nl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-nn_NO-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-oc-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-pa_IN-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-pl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-pt_BR-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-pt_PT-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ro-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ru-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sc-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-si-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sk-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sq-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sr-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-sv_SE-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-szl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ta-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-te-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-tg-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-th-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-tl-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-tr-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-uk-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-ur-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-uz-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-vi-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-xh-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-zh_CN-128.12.0-1.2.mga9
firefox-zh_TW-128.12.0-1.2.mga9

from SRPM:
firefox-128.12.0-1.4.mga9
firefox-l10n-128.12.0-1.2.mga9

Not special action required if/when packages pass QA stage

Status comment: (none) => Packages in comment 14

One thousand apologies.  Just a test to see if word-wrap is automatic on long lines of input text.  123456789 abcdefghijklmn opqerstuvwxyz.

And again - Just a test to see if word-wrap is automatic on long lines of input text.  123456789 abcdefghijklmn opqerstuvwxyz.

In a recent QA test of an unrelated bug there was no word-wrapping for
extra long lines.

The display is fine before "Save Changes".

CC: (none) => tarazed25

That looks OK.

mga9, x64

Firefox is still working fine here after the renaming.

If a test for armv7hl is needed, I can't do it. I don't have the hardware.

Working well on my main production desktop computer, anothe MGA9-64 Plasma system.

(In reply to Thomas Andrews from comment #18)
> If a test for armv7hl is needed, I can't do it. I don't have the hardware.
> 
> Working well on my main production desktop computer, anothe MGA9-64 Plasma
> system.

We never test for it, and I can't remember if somebody have the required hardware.
It will be a plus but that never hold the updates, and then will need to test for aarch64 also, so I think we must keep the standard procedure and test for common architectures

That was my opinion as well, and I don't know of anyone in QA with that hardware, either. I just thought that since this bug specifically references armv7hi, it might be a special case.

(In reply to Thomas Andrews from comment #20)
> That was my opinion as well, and I don't know of anyone in QA with that
> hardware, either. I just thought that since this bug specifically references
> armv7hi, it might be a special case.

Well we get a bug report time ago if somebody use in real hardware, I just can think in the build nodes for that architectures but I think not yet works with mageia 9.

Digging in the reports to get the links of the advisory, I find a comment done by me about the lack of package for arm , but nobody keep that watched :(

i586 OK on Thinkpad T43
x86_64 OK on Thinkpad T510, and my workstation.

I now see 128.12.0.1.4.  

You probably should publish a new list in this bug.

CC: (none) => brtians1

The package list in comment 14 is correct. Firefox is at 128.12.0-1.4 and the language packs are 128.12.0-1.2. 

It's easy to miss the difference - I did it myself the first time I put the list in Qarepo.

sorry - missed it again

two different machines over the last two days.

no issues

Whiteboard: (none) => MGA9-64-OK