Bug 1664798 Comment 151 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

(In reply to Rik from comment #148)
> **I want anyone here keep in mind this points**
> 
> **(1) The FF Dev edition factor **
> Whatever it is, I wonder why FF dev edition has **never** had such problem.

> while FF ESR from the Debian repo freezes the OS even on a static blank page and even minimized, at random times (ranging from 1 day to 2 weeks). Can anyone explain that?

It would be interesting if you get desktop freezes with Mozilla-built ESR91 as well: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/91.13.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-91.13.0esr.tar.bz2
But be careful: Don't restart it as it might instantly upgrade to [ESR 102](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar).

If I understand correctly, the [rust](https://packages.debian.org/source/buster/rustc) compiler version (1.41.1) in Debian stable is older than [minimum required rustc version](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-esr102/source/python/mozboot/mozboot/util.py#26) for Firefox ESR 102.
Then they [created](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000472) a [rustc-mozilla](https://packages.debian.org/source/buster/rustc-mozilla) package (1.59.0) with a newer but still old rust compiler.

bug 1504858: 109 (DevEdition/Beta) [requires 1.63.0](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-beta/source/python/mozboot/mozboot/util.py#13) and is built with [1.65.0](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-beta/source/taskcluster/ci/toolchain/rust.yml#41,43), maybe even [1.66](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/taskcluster/ci/toolchain/rust.yml#29).

[Non-Mozilla](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998108)-made ESR91 builds had also been affected by bug 1735905 comment 11.

In case of problems, one should test https://nightly.mozilla.org (Nightly+built by Mozilla). If it's unaffected, it's possible to narrow down a fix range (pip3 install mozregression; mozregression --find-fix --bad 91 --good 2023-01-12) if the problem was not caused by the built environment.
(In reply to Rik from comment #148)
> **I want anyone here keep in mind this points**
> 
> **(1) The FF Dev edition factor **
> Whatever it is, I wonder why FF dev edition has **never** had such problem.

> while FF ESR from the Debian repo freezes the OS even on a static blank page and even minimized, at random times (ranging from 1 day to 2 weeks). Can anyone explain that?

It would be interesting if you get desktop freezes with Mozilla-built ESR91 as well: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/91.13.0esr/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-91.13.0esr.tar.bz2
But be careful: Don't restart it as it might instantly upgrade to [ESR 102](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar).

If I understand correctly, the [rust](https://packages.debian.org/source/buster/rustc) compiler version (1.41.1) in Debian stable is older than [minimum required rustc version](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-esr102/source/python/mozboot/mozboot/util.py#26) for Firefox ESR 102.
Then they [created](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000472) a [rustc-mozilla](https://packages.debian.org/source/buster/rustc-mozilla) package (1.59.0) with a newer but still old rust compiler.

bug 1504858: 109 (DevEdition/Beta) [requires 1.63.0](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-beta/source/python/mozboot/mozboot/util.py#13) and is built with [1.65.0](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-beta/source/taskcluster/ci/toolchain/rust.yml#41,43), maybe even [1.66](https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/taskcluster/ci/toolchain/rust.yml#29).

[Non-Mozilla](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998108)-made ESR91 builds had also been affected by bug 1735905 comment 11.

In case of problems, one should test https://nightly.mozilla.org (Nightly+built by Mozilla). If it's unaffected, it's possible to narrow down a fix range (pip3 install mozregression; mozregression --find-fix --bad 91 --good 2023-01-12) if the problem was not caused by the build environment.

Back to Bug 1664798 Comment 151