Yes, the packages and their sources are not fully removed and can be recreated. Also the status may change whenever people step up with the will to become maintainers. And yes, as some may think why it should be not easy to then use Pale-Moon or other comparables: No, it is not that easy as thought. First the UXP-applications for Hyperbola were also designed with the Hyperbola-orientation. No inclusion of third party services, no non-free parts and definitions. So even though it maybe possible to use Pale-Moon, we cannot and will not follow that step.

So what to use then for browsing? Take the chance and clearly use webbrowsers as they should be used: This means not much or any javascript, no bloated websites and the webbrowser is surely not your media-central. The following webbrowsers are there to support you:

netsurf
(e)links
lynx

Let's be clear, honest and rational: It is impossible for such a small system-project alike Hyperbola to maintain an own browser, mail-client and whatever else. What was once the "internet" and especially the WWW (world-wide-web) is no longer maintainable, secure or in any way reasonable. To insist having a "modern" webbrowser, to search for websites full with javascripts calling whatever else technologies and callbacks, makes all using this as part of the problem and not the solution. And to think "fighting" this with whatever kind of addons, is like thinking to ignore the tremendous issues coming afterwards. If a website demands that amount of javascript and whatever webservice, than this website is not worth to be used or only under clear measuring likewise sandboxing. Sorry, but this is the reality we are all into and we are not even at the part of AI-scraperbots and more at this point in the mentioned points. At one point there needs to be a clear decision, and we here at Hyperbola have already decided. If you think different, that's surely okay. But please then demand not from us to include whatever else of a webbrowser then and go on with a different system. Thank you and I hope this is understandable. You may agree or surely disagree, but there are enough other places then.

Furthermore: No gcc is not going to be updated and it is not the case that UXP can be build easier with newer gcc releases when it comes to 32bit. It is even worse as the used build-system is the reasoning for not having the possibility to maintain a newer release. Please look clearly on the reasonings behind problems and issues. Updates to newer release does not always solve issues!

And I underline again: If we update gcc, we would need to rebuild every single package Hyperbola has. This is a work to be done for months. We are a stable oriented system-project and we comply to look behind our software here provided, not to comply always with newer releases as we do not care for more features. We do not care only for one architecture - meaning x86-64 - and we care absolutely for 32bit. So any new gcc is furthermore going away with 32bit as even the gcc-maintainers do not want to care for 32bit clearly. We do and we do not stop doing this.

Our gcc-version is absolutely sufficient for the software we have in mind and maintain here. It is even the other way around: Newer gcc-versions make it even more complicated to maintain the minimalistic software-packages we have here. So what should it be? Newer software with more unneeded features, even non-free inclusions? Or more minimalistic oriented software? We have done our decision and the orientation of Hyperbola is clear.

Thread so far closed!

No, icedove-uxp will stay for the near future surely. On the other hand UXP would need an update, but is also not very compliant any longer to build on 32bit-environments. So we took the point and removed iceweasel-uxp as it would no fit into the point of Hyperbolas perspective of a secure system. That is surely different for icedove-uxp at this moment and perhaps we can also find a further maintainer for this package in the future. That would the perspective.

Around 2th August we will go on with building the current additions and enhancements, therefore making 0.4.5 be already the running testing-repository. If needed I can write a bit more on how to test this at that date.

Question, will gcc ever be updated to a newer version in the future? If so, it would be much easier to build uxp from source.

and other free software as well.

Btw, agree about deprecating iceweasel-uxp for now. its not as useful due to the user agent sniffing websites causing it problems so constantly.

Around 2th August we will go on with building the current additions and enhancements, therefore making 0.4.5 be already the running testing-repository. If needed I can write a bit more on how to test this at that date.

Sorry to see UXP going. Will Icedove be also discontinued?