# Find package for Firefox 56.



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 7, 2018)

Where can I find firefox-56.0.2_12,1.txz ?


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

Idon't know how to find this package. But another way is `portdowngrade` www/firefox in the port and `make package`. `Portdowngrade` is from www/portupgrade.


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 7, 2018)

I had seen portdowngrade, but read that you shouldn't mix ports and packages.  It just seems strange to me that when the repository gets updated that the previous packages just cease to exist anywhere that I can find.


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

It is no mix, if you use default options (in firefox and all  dependencies).

EDIT: If you ever worked with packages, you should have default options in all ports.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Jan 7, 2018)

Distfiles, the files initially downloaded to compile into programs, can be found in /usr/ports/distfiles


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

If he had never run `pkg clean`.....


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 7, 2018)

I originally installed Firefox from a package:  pkg install firefox
This was Firefox 56.  Then a pkg upgrade and a pkg clean had me ending up with Firefox 57 and no way to revert it.
There are no ports on this install.
That is why I am looking for the firefox-56.0.2_12,1.txz package.


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 7, 2018)

talsamon said:


> If he had never run `pkg clean`.....



LOL...yep.  If only...


----------



## Datapanic (Jan 7, 2018)

If you can't find it on your local machine, you could figure out when that version of firefox was in the ports tree and then use subversion to download the ports tree for that date.  So, if that version of firefox was there on 12/31/2016, then:

`svn co -r'{2016-12-31}' https://svn.freebsd.org/ports/head /usr/ports`

will get the ports tree for that date, then build your firefox and enjoy.

I don't think you'll be able to download an older package of firefox.


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

Sorry, but that is the same like `portdowngrade`. You have to search with`portdowngrade -r`  the revision numer and choose it. Then change in the new directory and compile.


----------



## tobik@ (Jan 7, 2018)

Not a solution to the question per se, but try with www/waterfox.  It's Firefox 56.0 with a bunch of backported patches and security fixes applied (including a Spectre mitigation).


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 7, 2018)

I downloaded Waterfox a couple of days ago once I figured out that putting Firefox 56 back on was going to be stupidly difficult.  I can not believe that I have wasted four nights and STILL do not have it reinstalled  :-(    I really really really hate feeling robbed just because I updated.  This is the kind of crap Apple does.  That is why I detest updating anymore, I never know what surprise is going to bring life to a stop because something will no longer do what I need done.


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

I always wanted a second browser as alternative, for moments `firefox` has problems.  `Waterfox` could it be, but expires on 30.1.2018. `Midori` crashes or freezes randomly (and you never know why), `Opera` is anymore the nice browser it once was and `chromium` has a lot of patches and does not work right. (I wanted to test `otter-browser`, but I have not done till now).


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Jan 7, 2018)

Just install www/firefox-esr, it is v52 firefox (ESR is Extended Support Release),
it should work like 56 version, so it is a nice option for you, just type:
`# pkg ins firefox-esr`

But also it is possible to try www/palemoon or, as written above,  www/waterfox.


----------



## talsamon (Jan 7, 2018)

Yes, for the moment I have installed www/firefox-esr but it is a "slowfox".
(It always need time if you use a new browser and you know how things work). I hope a working firefox-58 will arrive soon or the devel/llvm50 problems will be fixed).


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 14, 2018)

I wanted to update everyone with how this project is going.
I still do not have Firefox-56.0.2_12.  Still...
However, one of the gentlemen on the forums provided me with his Firefox-56.0.2_9, which solved my pressing issue.
In less than 60 seconds I had it downloaded, installed, and working.  In less than 60 seconds.
This is how I envisioned this whole problem being solved from the beginning, but that is not how it was to be.

After much mucking around it seems that I am close to getting Firefox-56.0.2_12, but it still hasn't happened yet.
This is the current situation, after much pain, running my hotspot out of data, and compiling till my SSD ran out of space...

The package maintainer graciously replied to an email and told me that Firefox-56.0.2_12 was a commit that was exclusive to 2017Q4.
So I attempted once again with the following:

svn co -r 458983 https://svn.freebsd.org/ports/head /usr/ports

I got 458983 from this info:

https://svn.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2017Q4/www/firefox/
ports - Revision 458983: /branches/2017Q4/www/firefox
The makefile in the directory shows that it is the version I need.

But when I run   "portdowngrade www/firefox"   r457318 is not one of the available options.

Anyone have an idea where this is going sideways, or able to attempt this and see what is happening?


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 14, 2018)

Well I finally got the correct port tree.

svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2017Q4 /usr/ports

However, when I run "portdowngrade www/firefox" I get the same exact version options that I have all along.
I don't know where portdowngrade is getting it's information, but it has never showed me what I was needing.

I am currently cd into /usr/ports/www/firefox and it is making firefox-56.0.2_12,1.
We'll see what happens.


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Jan 23, 2018)

Well after quite a bit of pain, I was able to get it all sorted out and working, while learning a few things and remembering a few I'd forgotten.
If anyone should find they need a copy of the package let me know.
Thanks for the input.


----------



## dieselriot (Feb 2, 2018)

OldSchoolDroid said:


> Well after quite a bit of pain, I was able to get it all sorted out and working, while learning a few things and remembering a few I'd forgotten.
> If anyone should find they need a copy of the package let me know.
> Thanks for the input.



I need a copy, can you upload it somewhere or email me? Thanks.


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Feb 5, 2018)

I uploaded it to my 4shared account.  You can get to it from this link:

https://www.4shared.com/folder/FMhWC2T_/Firefox_56_-_FreeBSD.html

Firefox-56.0.2_9,1.txz is one that I got from another member of the forum.  It worked for me with no problems.
Firefox-56.0.2_12,1.txz is the one that I compiled.  It works fine, but it is compiled with ICU 59.  If your ICU version is 60 or newer you will get an error that libicu**.59 can't be found.  You can make a symlink to correct the error.  It is probably not a good idea to downgrade ICU, and just copying over the correct 59 version of the two files doesn't work. (I tried)

ln -s /usr/local/lib/libicui18n.so.60 /usr/local/lib/libicui18n.so.59

ln -s /usr/local/lib/libicuuc.so.60 /usr/local/lib/libicuuc.so.59

Then to lock Firefox so this doesn't happen again:

pkg lock firefox

To verify the lock:

pkg lock -l


----------



## dieselriot (Feb 6, 2018)

I managed to download it. Is anyone else experiencing visual glitches? Specifically the back/forward buttons? Under which GTK themes?


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Feb 6, 2018)

I never saw any and I just double checked.
I'm using the Elarun theme that was the default.


----------



## tobik@ (Feb 6, 2018)

OldSchoolDroid said:


> It works fine, but it is compiled with ICU 59. If your ICU version is 60 or newer you will get an error that libicu**.59 can't be found. You can make a symlink to correct the error. It is probably not a good idea to downgrade ICU, and just copying over the correct 59 version of the two files doesn't work. (I tried)


Yes, it's not a good idea to symlink newer library versions to old ones to paper over issues like this.  ICU 60 is not ABI compatible with ICU 59 [1] meaning that at best you get crashes and at worst risk silent data corruption.  The results are completely undefined.  The correct solution is to recompile Firefox 56 again and link it to the newer ICU.

[1] https://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/compat_report/icu4c/59_1/60_1/4eecc/abi_compat_report.html


----------



## OldSchoolDroid (Feb 7, 2018)

tobik@ said:


> Yes, it's not a good idea to symlink newer library versions to old ones to paper over issues like this.  ICU 60 is not ABI compatible with ICU 59 [1] meaning that at best you get crashes and at worst risk silent data corruption.  The results are completely undefined.  The correct solution is to recompile Firefox 56 again and link it to the newer ICU.
> 
> [1] https://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/compat_report/icu4c/59_1/60_1/4eecc/abi_compat_report.html



I agree with you 100%.  However, I just can't compile it again while I am out on the road, so it will have to wait till later.
However, since it was specific to 4th quarter 2017, it should work fine without any symlinks for anyone that didn't update after that.  One of my issues with this project is I had to delete my VM to have enough disc space to compile it.  When I recreated the VM, I ended up with ICU 60 instead of 59, and didn't find out till it was too late.


----------



## sfojimbo (Feb 7, 2019)

Hey guys I'm not a programmer or a hobbyist, I just need a version of Firefox that will work with a cookiemanager and it seems that Firefox version 56 is what  I need.  Does anybody here know where I can get such a thing without needing compilers or such stuff?  I guess what I need is the executable version 56 file that Mozella used to make available to their users.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Feb 7, 2019)

Why in the world does one want nine version old software?


----------



## SirDice (Feb 7, 2019)

sfojimbo said:


> I guess what I need is the executable version 56 file that Mozella used to make available to their users.


So you want to provide your users with a broken and known vulnerable version? Do you hate your users that much?


----------

