Isn't that literally the point of the sources DVD? You can recompile any included software using just the full Slackware install and the sources. Thats the impression I got from the main site, SlackDocs, manual pages, etc.

2 members found this post helpful.

I agree, that would be a departure from the norm. As far as I know, any of the Slackware sources should be rebuild-able with a full Slackware install and nothing more (though I've never tried rebuilding all of them, so I could be wrong).

1 members found this post helpful.

see ESR more as a LTS, and the other one, firefox current, as a developer snapshot. No magic here.
if you put a non LTS into current, and than want to stabilize for release, you might what to go down with the version number, or ship an unstable package with Slackware, or adopt to the release cycle of the whole distribution to the release cycle from FF.
So this is a different situation to your comparison with xorg, no magic here, just details, BTW ...
also, and this is why i prefer ESR, ff-current breaks plugins from time to time, and I know a lot of users that have changed because of this to chrome.
Mozilla made a huge mistake by making their current branch to the 'default' one, and the ESR to only those who know about it.
It should have been precise vice versa, than firefox would not have that big loss on users, which hey have.
Mozilla made its users to beta testers, and frustrated a lot of plugin authors with their unstable and unpredictable development plans. The shrinking user numbers are the result.

2 members found this post helpful.

As far as I know, that's a misconception. I'm going by this quote from Pat:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...3/#post3978712

4 members found this post helpful.

That is factually incorrect, especially with regard to Firefox. Some releases are better than others, and it's seldom a linear progression.

4 members found this post helpful.

Prefer no binary repacks and no more gnome in stable tree, tbh. I'll just remove it either way because of how demanding it is.

I stand corrected. Makes sense. (The thread that link is for is RIDICULOUS)

Okay, now that I looked at that thread I remember that I've heard that before. However, I still think it would be a departure from the norm for a SlackBuild script to require a certain compiler but for that compiler to not be available on Slackware at the time the package is built.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ah, that asshole LuckyCyborg... I used the occasion to add a bit of explanatory text to the Slack Docs FAQ page: https://docs.slackware.com/slackware...d_from_scratch . I hope that it is sufficient to fend off any future trolls.

3 members found this post helpful.

Eric, good to know that a well know fact about Slackware (that it is not rebuild-able from its given sources) it is also stated officially.

But, what is your opinion about the Pigzilla Firehog shipped by Slackware even in its development tree?

Also, you consider to be normal for a web browser to eat 3.5GB memory or something really stinks?

As a Slackware Team insider, maybe you can enlighten us...

Just install and use the 55.x version, and you will see that it is dramatic superior from all points of view...

You weren't talking to me, but...

yeah that's normal.

Then, how you explain that three major versions later, same software manage to do the same job using around 500MB ?

Well... I do not use Firefox, so I have no opinion to share on this.

Do add-ons like uMatrix, uBlock Origin and Tree Style Tabs work with this latest Firefox? They're the reason I use Firefox. Memory use is not an issue for me because I have 32GB but the plugins definitely are an issue. Perhaps Pat has this in mind?