On Linux, case matters, for filesystems, and variously for package managers. For contemporary Fedora, Mageia and openSUSE releases at least, http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/system-requirements/ does not match what their package managers have to offer. Currently that page contains the following: GTK+ 2.18 or higher GLib 2.22 or higher Pango 1.14 or higher X.Org 1.0 or higher (1.7 or higher is recommended) libstdc++ 4.3 or higher Due to bug 704298 and bug 685433 I needed to first find out if these requirements were met, and found among those five that only a libstdc++ package could be found either installed or not. e.g., on Mageia 4, apparently some among the following installed packages amount to meeting the requirements, since rv24 and rv26 run, even though rv21-rv23 will not: gtk+2.0-2.24.20-1.mga4 lib64gtk+2.0_0-2.24.20-1.mga4 glib2.0-common-2.37.5-1.mga4 glibc-2.17-10.mga4 lib64glib2.0_0-2.37.5-1.mga4 lib64glib-gir2.0-1.37.4-1.mga4 lib64glibmm2.4_1-2.37.5-1.mga4 lib64pango1.0_0-1.35.0-1.mga4 lib64pango1.0_0-modules-1.35.0-1.mga4 pango-1.35.0-1.mga4 libstdc++6-4.8.2-0.20130808.2.mga4 x11-server-xorg-1.14.2-6.mga4 How can anyone figure out if requirements are met when none of GTK+, GLib, Pango or X.Org exist, and no guidance is given WRT package names that may comprise them? The requirements page needs to spell the names of the packages that meed the requirements properly both WRT case and the name of the required package, not GLib when what is actually meant and meets the requirement is lib[,64]glib. Names there now may be technically correct, but what's there now is little help in actually making sure the requirements are or can be met.

Hi Lukas- Does this one fall into your realm? Thx, Jen

I don't think the system requirements are intended to be a package-specific dependency list, but this one is up to the release management team I think.

comment 2 is correct, we do not do a package-specific list - as the notes state, these are the libraries and packages that must be present on a Linux distro in order for Firefox to work. If anyone finds something else that was missed please file a bug for investigation but these requirements rarely change, only when we no longer support an older version of the listed libraries/packages.

I'm not asking for package specific across all distributions. Those would indeed be onerous given the inconsistencies among distros in naming software. What is perfectly reasonable to expect is a requirements list that makes reasonably clear how the requirements can be met. That is not what is there now. Now is a list whose elements are easily confused with similarly named packages that cannot fulfill the requirements. Expanding the meaning of a requirements list to include some examples of specific package names that meet, and some examples of unneeded package names that are easily confused with names of required packages, is not too much to ask, or unreasonable, though may require collaboration of several people familiar with various names that could serve the purpose. Something better than the misleading content that is there now does not deserve to be wontfixed.