搜尋 Mozilla 技術支援網站

防止技術支援詐騙。我們絕對不會要求您撥打電話或發送簡訊,或是提供個人資訊。請用「回報濫用」功能回報可疑的行為。

了解更多

about: build identifier correct ??

more options

I have observed that the build identifier for Firefox-5.0.1 is

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0.1

and the timestamps on many of the downloaded files seem to agree. On the other hand, the build identifier for SeaMonkey-2.2 is

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110706 Firefox/5.0 SeaMonkey/2.2

Note the date difference even though the revisons seem to be the same. FWIW - the SeaMonkey timestamps are close to those for Firefox.

Why the difference?

A second curiosity. I know that Firefox-5.0.1 and SeaMonkey-2.2 were very recently released yet the timestamps on the executables are more than a year and a half ago.

How come?

-- Paul Townsend (Purdue Univ., ITaP-ITSO Systems Administrator)

I have observed that the build identifier for Firefox-5.0.1 is Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0.1 and the timestamps on many of the downloaded files seem to agree. On the other hand, the build identifier for SeaMonkey-2.2 is Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110706 Firefox/5.0 SeaMonkey/2.2 Note the date difference even though the revisons seem to be the same. FWIW - the SeaMonkey timestamps are close to those for Firefox. Why the difference? A second curiosity. I know that Firefox-5.0.1 and SeaMonkey-2.2 were very recently released yet the timestamps on the executables are more than a year and a half ago. How come? -- Paul Townsend (Purdue Univ., ITaP-ITSO Systems Administrator)

所有回覆 (2)

more options

Firefox 4 and later all have the same timestamps in the user agent Gecko/20100101
That value will probably never change again.
It is part of exposing as less privacy information as possible to web servers via the user agent.

You can check the file application.ini in the Firefox program folder to see the BuildID or open the Troubleshooting Information page (Help > Troubleshooting Information).

  • browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID

You can also follow the Build link on the about:buildconfig page.

由 cor-el 於 修改

more options

Okay, that basically answers question 1.

Question two basically asks when the executables were finalized since many of their timestamps effectivly agree with the "new" UA. If those timestamps are accurate, why weren't the executables released sooner?