.
FF 65.0.2-candidates/build1 has been sitting in /pub/firefox/candidates/ since February 28th. When I check for updates on FF 65.0.1 it says it is up to date.
Anyone know what is going on?
.
65.0.2?
-
- Posts: 4480
- Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am
Re: 65.0.2?
was released yesterday or today, maybe its rolled out in waves. any how the fix was only for windows, so android is still 65.0.1, could be same for osx.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/6 ... easenotes/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/6 ... easenotes/
- RobertJ
- Moderator
- Posts: 10880
- Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
- Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI
-
- Posts: 4480
- Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am
Re: 65.0.2?
you are welcome.
#forgot: mozilla offers 65.0.2 as regular but for osx it is not required. But you can install it if you feel more comfortable. This happend not the first time.
#forgot: mozilla offers 65.0.2 as regular but for osx it is not required. But you can install it if you feel more comfortable. This happend not the first time.
- RobertJ
- Moderator
- Posts: 10880
- Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
- Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI
Re: 65.0.2?
.
Just noticed that there are 65.0.2 builds for OSX in all languages at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
For some reason 65.0.1 says it is up to date?
.
Just noticed that there are 65.0.2 builds for OSX in all languages at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
For some reason 65.0.1 says it is up to date?
.
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
- smsmith
- Moderator
- Posts: 19979
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 8:51 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: 65.0.2?
Sometimes fixes are only needed for one OS but not the others. But when they run the build script, I believe it makes a new build for all supported platforms, but the new build is not pushed to the update system because there were no changes. Or, they have decided to roll the update out slowly for one reason or another. Or what Brummelchen said already.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
- smsmith
- Moderator
- Posts: 19979
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 8:51 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: 65.0.2?
Here's the "what's new" for 65.0.2:
No fix for OSX, no release for OSX.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/6 ... n=whatsnewFixed an issue with geolocation services affecting Windows users
No fix for OSX, no release for OSX.
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
- RobertJ
- Moderator
- Posts: 10880
- Joined: October 15th, 2003, 7:40 pm
- Location: Chicago IL/Oconomowoc WI
Re: 65.0.2?
.
It (65.0.2 release) is here (fix not)
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
for OSX; however, when I opened the .1 and .2 packages all files look the same but have different dates. Seems a little odd to not increment the OSX version so they all match across platforms. On the other hand it is Mozilla.
.
It (65.0.2 release) is here (fix not)
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/
for OSX; however, when I opened the .1 and .2 packages all files look the same but have different dates. Seems a little odd to not increment the OSX version so they all match across platforms. On the other hand it is Mozilla.
.
FF 92.0 - TB 78.13 - Mac OSX 10.13.6
- smsmith
- Moderator
- Posts: 19979
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 8:51 pm
- Location: Indiana
Re: 65.0.2?
If you make people run an update just so the version numbers match but nothing was actually in the update, which do you think makes them more upset, that you interrupted their work flow for no reason whatsoever, or that their version numbers don't match a platform that they probably do not give two poops about?
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
I like poetry, long walks on the beach and poking dead things with a stick.
Please do not PM me for personal support. Keep posts here in the Forums instead and we all learn.
-
- Posts: 4480
- Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am
Re: 65.0.2?
look the same but have different dates
there was no code change for osx so they compiled the same codeBut when they run the build script, I believe it makes a new build for all supported platforms
- therube
- Posts: 21703
- Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: 65.0.2?
(It's not really uncommon for automated builds to do that. DownThemAll [remember that ] does that to this day. A "new" build, yet the code has not been touched in ages.
Some might argue that having "correct" numbers is a requirement, Mozilla Maintenance Service never updates itself .)
Some might argue that having "correct" numbers is a requirement, Mozilla Maintenance Service never updates itself .)
Fire 750, bring back 250.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript