Rationale behind using LibreWolf's portable launcher #5622
ltguillaume
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 2 comments 14 replies
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
11 replies
-
I'm not really understanding the discussion so far. Has the problem been fixed? My current problems I have with the scoop install is what @ltguillaume noted in the start of the discussion.
Were these issues addressed over the years? If they were, how can I remedy it? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Using LibreWolf via scoop raises the following issues:
persist\librewolf
, or they end up with two icons on the taskbar when LibreWolf is running (the launcher's and the browser's).Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/comments/162vam1/librewolf_fails_to_update_properly_when_using/
These issues are caused by using the portable launcher I created, instead of
librewolf.exe
directly. The portable launcher is primarily for use on portable drives and for people who don't want any system integration to happen (so file/protocol association, pinning to the taskbar etc. naturally are all out of its scope). Scoop, on the other hand, is only "semi-portable": it doesn't use installers if it doesn't have to and tries to place all critical application data into a single folder (scoop\persist
), but apart from that, it adds Start menu shortcuts, adds shims to run the applications from anywhere by their executable's name and allows the apps to interact/integrate with the OS freely.Then why not just use the portable archive to extract the browser, but use
librewolf.exe
instead of the launcher and make sure the profile is created inpersist\librewolf
the same way it's done for Firefox?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions