You are not logged in.

#26 2018-08-09 22:30:35

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

So, better I guess to keep the firefox folder somewhere in home and create your simlynk in ~./bin

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/in … efox-linux

Offline

#27 2018-08-10 05:25:07

ohnonot
...again
Registered: 2015-09-29
Posts: 3,773
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

hhh, you have the exact same situation i described in my previous post.
your /opt/firefox folder is user-owned.
in that case i see no difference whether firefox is in /opt or under your home.
you put that there yourself?

Offline

#28 2018-08-10 06:23:55

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 5,486
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

ohnonot wrote:

your /opt/firefox folder is user-owned.
in that case i see no difference whether firefox is in /opt or under your home.

Nor me.


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
In case you forget, the rules.

Offline

#29 2018-08-10 16:22:43

Jimbo_G
Member
From: France
Registered: 2017-05-12
Posts: 125

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

I exactly followed hhh's tutorial back at post #3 and can confirm that I do not have the latest update. I'm still on 61.0.1 and the About page just says "updates available at https://www.mozilla.org/firefox".

Offline

#30 2018-08-11 21:38:12

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

johnraff wrote:
ohnonot wrote:

your /opt/firefox folder is user-owned.
in that case i see no difference whether firefox is in /opt or under your home.

Nor me.

Same here. Yes, I extracted the firefox tar to ~/Downloads, opened Thunar as root and moved it to /opt. Indeed, it shows the owner as 'rachel' (my current user-name). Confirmed the privileges by opening Thunar as user and I can copy/paste files into /opt/firefox without issue. I feel confident that since I ran /usr/local/bin/firefox from my 'rachel' session that it auto-updated properly.

@jimbo, check your /opt/firefox, what privileges does it have? Maybe you didn't fully follow my instructions?

BTW, the Debian Wiki describes downloading FF to /home. extracting it, moving it to /opt and creating a symlink in /usr/local/bin in nearly the same way...

If you want to be able to launch Firefox from the command line, you need to create a symlink to the firefox executable in some folder that is included in your PATH variable, such as /usr/local/bin. For example, if you uncompressed the downloaded archive in /opt, you would do it like this:

sudo ln -s /opt/firefox/firefox /usr/local/bin/

https://wiki.debian.org/Firefox#Firefox … nd_Nightly

https://wiki.debian.org/Permissions

Offline

#31 2018-08-12 02:34:11

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 5,486
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

hhh wrote:

I extracted the firefox tar to ~/Downloads, opened Thunar as root and moved it to /opt. Indeed, it shows the owner as 'rachel' (my current user-name).

Something's wrong here. /opt belongs to root and OK you had to run Thunar as root in order to put any files there. What's weird is that the Firefox files are owned by you! They should belong to root. Did you change the ownership after?

I feel confident that since I ran /usr/local/bin/firefox from my 'rachel' session that it auto-updated properly.

That's because you own the files. That's not a normal situation.

---
Part of the Linux security model is that user executables' files belong to root, but are run by an ordinary user. This limits the damage they can do to the system if they are compromised by an intruder, or in the hands of an inexperienced user. This means, though, that executables themselves can only be modified or upgraded by root.

The write permission can be off for users while still allowing them execute permission, so where the symlink is located doesn't matter, as long as it's somewhere in $PATH. (Even if it isn't in $PATH, you can run it using the full path.)

An exception can be made if users choose to install executables somewhere inside their $HOME. Then they own the files and can modify them however they like. The same applies to any intruder though, so this is a less secure option. Such invasions might be rare, but they can happen.

Web browsers, especially, by definition are roaming all over the internet and might come into contact with all kinds of nasty code. Modern web sites think nothing of sending out multiple javascript files for browsers to execute. They are supposed to be safe, but vulnerabilities do happen, so we should be careful.


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
In case you forget, the rules.

Offline

#32 2018-08-12 03:04:59

DeepDayze
Member
From: In Linux Land
Registered: 2017-05-28
Posts: 709

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

I find the best way is to install FF to your home folder usually to  your $HOME/bin/firefox. This way it's easy to update it.


Real Men Use Linux

Offline

#33 2018-08-12 06:01:46

ohnonot
...again
Registered: 2015-09-29
Posts: 3,773
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

not sure if anything is wrong per se; using firefox from a folder under your $HOME has been fairly standard for a long while.
but i agree it would be safer to have it installed with root privileges, and run with user privileges.
otoh, debian wiki clearly specifies both options.
if i was hhh i would either move it out of /opt and into $HOME, or change ownership to root. just to have a clearer situation.

Offline

#34 2018-08-16 02:01:02

Doberdad
Member
Registered: 2018-07-07
Posts: 8

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

Worked for me. Only problem is that the icon is missing in TINT2.

Offline

#35 2018-08-21 13:39:17

jimjamz
Member
From: Nagasaki, Japan
Registered: 2016-04-04
Posts: 90

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

Sorry, I didn't see page 2 before replying but anyway, to reinforce the point ...

This is the key to your ability to update without being 'root':

hhh wrote:
drwxr-xr-x 10 rachel rachel      4096 Aug  9 18:15 firefox

because 'rachel' is both the owner and group member (and I presume you are 'rachel'), you have unrestricted permissions to this directory, but not its parent directory (the directory above it, /root).  This is not really a recommended way of applying permissions to a directory structure.

The question is, why the owner is 'rachel' for a sub-directory of a directory that is owned by 'root'?  I'm more interested how you initially created the firefox directory and extrcted the files from the archive to that directory, because:

extracting as 'rachel':

tar -xvf firefox-61.0.2.tar.bz2 -C /opt/

would not allow you to do this in a directory owned by 'root', so:

extracting as 'root':

sudo tar -xvf firefox-61.0.2.tar.bz2 -C /opt/

would extract the directory under /opt but the sub-directory (firefox would be owned by 'root' also:

drwxr-xr-x 9 root root      4096 Aug  21 18:30 firefox

Offline

#36 2018-08-21 13:53:09

jimjamz
Member
From: Nagasaki, Japan
Registered: 2016-04-04
Posts: 90

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

johnraff wrote:

Something's wrong here. /opt belongs to root and OK you had to run Thunar as root in order to put any files there. What's weird is that the Firefox files are owned by you! They should belong to root. Did you change the ownership after?

Because when the initial extraction was done, it was extracted to a local directory under /home, setting the ownership to 'rachel'.  Then, when the files are moved (not copied), the permissions are retained, regardless of their destination (providing it's on the same disk). If the directory was copied, the owner would be 'root''.

Offline

#37 2018-08-22 01:03:56

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

jimjamz wrote:

Because when the initial extraction was done, it was extracted to a local directory under /home, setting the ownership to 'rachel'.  Then, when the files are moved (not copied), the permissions are retained, regardless of their destination (providing it's on the same disk). If the directory was copied, the owner would be 'root''.

And that's what I did, I opened thunar via pkexec and cut/pasted (NOT copy/pasted) the firefox folder to /opt. But I'd recommend leaving it somewhere in your home directory on a single-user system. Throw it in a dot folder if you don't want to see it.

-edit- Clarity.

Offline

#38 2018-08-22 02:37:47

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 5,486
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

jimjamz wrote:
johnraff wrote:

Something's wrong here. /opt belongs to root and OK you had to run Thunar as root in order to put any files there. What's weird is that the Firefox files are owned by you! They should belong to root. Did you change the ownership after?

Because when the initial extraction was done, it was extracted to a local directory under /home, setting the ownership to 'rachel'.  Then, when the files are moved (not copied), the permissions are retained, regardless of their destination (providing it's on the same disk). If the directory was copied, the owner would be 'root''.

Thank you! Now it all makes sense.


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
In case you forget, the rules.

Offline

#39 2018-08-28 14:50:47

Jimbo_G
Member
From: France
Registered: 2017-05-12
Posts: 125

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

hhh wrote:
jimjamz wrote:

Because when the initial extraction was done, it was extracted to a local directory under /home, setting the ownership to 'rachel'.  Then, when the files are moved (not copied), the permissions are retained, regardless of their destination (providing it's on the same disk). If the directory was copied, the owner would be 'root''.

And that's what I did, I opened thunar via pkexec and cut/pasted (NOT copy/pasted) the firefox folder to /opt. But I'd recommend leaving it somewhere in your home directory on a single-user system. Throw it in a dot folder if you don't want to see it.

-edit- Clarity.

Okay, I finally understand - that explains why my FF isn't updating because I followed hhh's mini-tutorial back at post #3 where it says to copy (not move) the folder to /opt.

Having seen the other replies I think I'll move it back to $HOME. It could be worth updating that original post?

Offline

#40 2018-08-29 00:26:45

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

Grrr... looking for original post (link, please?)...

Offline

#41 2018-08-29 00:30:27

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Offline

#42 2018-09-05 22:18:30

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

62.0 is out, I just got the update.

Offline

#43 2018-09-06 01:40:03

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 5,486
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

The title of this thread is wrong i guess. Firefox ESR is still 52.9.


John
--------------------
( a boring Japan blog , Japan Links, idle twitterings  and GitStuff )
In case you forget, the rules.

Offline

#44 2018-09-06 01:50:41

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

I was thinking the same thing when I made my last post, this is really 2 threads. Recommend to split them. I'll do it tomorrow morning, if you're not up for it now like I'm not. smile

Offline

#45 2018-10-25 22:57:45

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 7,965
Website

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

Upgrade today, current Firefox is 63.0.

Offline

#46 2019-07-11 13:26:21

Jimbo_G
Member
From: France
Registered: 2017-05-12
Posts: 125

Re: Firefox 60 ESR

Is it okay to resurrect this thread? My Firefox has happily updated itself until version 67.0.4. Now that version 68 is out (I think), it's not updating and is suggesting I download a new copy. Anyone else having this issue?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB