Issue: garuda-browser-settings is too much and required by garuda-common-settings, but why?

I have a new issue to report on. This time garuda-browser-settings. As previously mentioned before in the social mediums, While most of the additional settings may be welcome by most people, some are not, especially in the case of Firefox being made to turn pest about anything not in https with the following:

# HTTPS by default (FF83+)

I don't personally like this, Firefox hasn't enabled this for a reason, Chrome doesn't, most browsers don't for reasons much wider known in that, the world simply isn't generally ready for this. All this is doing today is preparing people to effectively create a new "oh, one of these, click click, bypass, continue" and this is not what we want.

Despite this, While I would argue till the cows fly home on this, and would love for these two things to be removed from the default setup I was going to compromise and simply uninstall this so that these settings don't get applied to Firefox, or any other browser I install. But... Alas.. I could not do even that, because garuda-common-settings depends specifically on garuda-browser-settings, and this... THIS would result in removing more than a reasonable amount of stuff, including of which is:

  • btrfsmaintenance
  • garuda-bash-config
  • gardua-common-settings
  • garuda-migrations
  • garuda-xfce-settings
  • profile-sync-daemon
  • systemd-oomd-defaults
  • zram-generator

And this is pretty much because garuda-common-settings depends on gardua-browser-settings!
This should absolutely definitely be something optional, not something so engrained and embedded that removing it does so much, and for controversial adjustments included too.



That does seem odd. Wouldn't you think it would be the other way around?

Not the other way around so much as, an independent package in itself, listed in the installer to install, but not required ultimately by the garuda-common-settings in a way that blocks removal itself.

I'm thinking looking at the garuda-common-settings, iso-profiles, and pkgrel bump, and submitting PR's towards those to isolate this in that way reasonably.

Sounds like a great idea!


Yep. I'm just looking into what's needed. TNE suggested I keep it as an optional dependency, at least, to prevent it from becoming an orphan. and of course including it directly in the installations still. I'm okay with this provided I can simply remove it in the end because if I create another user, I wouldn't want to have those settings applied, specifically the extreme ssl ones.

I'm not opposed to doing the work as long as I'm given some understanding and direction, which has been happening which I'm thankful for. :slight_smile:

My first thought was possibly including it in at the iso-profiles, as that's where the installation packages looks to be handling what to install, and then using a migration to change gardua-browser-settings to explicitely being instaleld with something like pacman -D --asexplicit garuda-browser-settings -- TNE suggested that migrations can't do anything pacman related. So, hence the optional dependency route.

1 Like

Here's a question though, looking at this specifically already:

Doesn't this mean, already, that garuda-browser-settings is explicitly included? Further checking on this, pacman -Qqe | grep garuda shows garuda-browser-settings is in the list. So, I think this side of things may already be done?

Yep, since we have it in our iso-profiles, all people will have it listed as explicitly installed. No need for any further intervention.

So, really then the fix would be more just in garuda-common-settings, to move it to optional?

Correct! Actually, I also think that's a good idea. Most people won't ever think about uninstalling either browser-settings or common-settings and those who do should be able to as long as we can keep it preinstalled.

1 Like

Exactly. I mean, it provides newer people some default garuda-speciifc links, I'm okay with this as every distro does this. My biggest personal concern has just been the default ssl-enforcement is a bit stronger than it should be. But experienced people could ultimately see this and figure this out and reverse it. Like I did.


This guy is new user of the month lol. and the fact that his avatar resembles this is amusing...

It just needs the flat top and shades.


and he is from canada @tbg :hugs:


Don't try to put this on me. I'm sure he must be an Easterner, as us West Coasters are all laidback and mellow. :rofl:


Whaaaat? Am I being targetted now? LOL

Well, I did put in a Merge-Request. :slight_smile:


Inside joke. No worries. My comment on you being new user of the month was sincere. :hugs:


No worries, I don't mind jokes. Just helps if I better understand them. :rofl: new user of the month, is a good thing, too? Heh heh


Merge request merged! Excellent!

1 Like

tbg = The Big Guy. Our big guy.

Any others are a poor imitation. :heavy_check_mark:

But you fit the bill for new user of the month, for sure. :smiley:


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.