latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install problem

joeg · Post by **joeg** » April 17th, 2004, 5:14 am

Hi,

This morning I downloaded and "installed" both
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/f ... -win32.zip -> 6918 KB-17.04.04-06:39:00 and the tinderbox build just before it, which still had the date 16.04.04.

I was unable to install the "Smooth Wheel" extension in either one. The xpi file would download, I got the "Install Now" dialogue box, but that was the end.

I got rid of both of them and just now started to use the 16.04 official nightly build. Installing Smoothwheel worked fine.

I understand what the "tinderbox" builds are, and this is NOT a "complaint". I just wanted to bring it to people's attention.

Joe

P.S. Is there a verb that is used instead of "install" in regard to "zip" files? I'm aware of the expression "unzip into the ... directory", but it's quite cumbersone.

P.P.S. Is there any way to "hand install" an xpi file?

../frank · Post by **../frank** » April 17th, 2004, 5:34 am

JoeG wrote:P.S. Is there a verb that is used instead of "install" in regard to "zip" files? I'm aware of the expression "unzip into the ... directory", but it's quite cumbersone.

extract

joeg · Post by **joeg** » April 17th, 2004, 5:42 am

../frank wrote:
JoeG wrote:P.S. Is there a verb that is used instead of "install" in regard to "zip" files? I'm aware of the expression "unzip into the ... directory", but it's quite cumbersone.

extract

Thanks, but does "extract" alone explain the complete concept: "I unzipped the file and extracted all the sub-files into the directory xxx, so that I can now use the program"?

I guess what I meant to ask was whether there's a verb used in regard to zip files that carries all the implications that "install" has for .exe files.

Joe

../frank · Post by **../frank** » April 17th, 2004, 6:54 am

JoeG wrote:I guess what I meant to ask was whether there's a verb used in regard to zip files that carries all the implications that "install" has for .exe files.Joe

Not really. 8) Perhaps you should use "unzip".

To add to your confusion

I use Linux about 99.44% of the time where there are no "dot-exe" files. As to why I suggested "extract", here are the first few lines of the "usage" message from a popular unzip program in Linux:

$ unzip
UnZip 5.50 of 17 February 2002, by Info-ZIP. Maintained by C. Spieler. Send
bug reports to the authors at Zip-Bugs@lists.wku.edu; see README for details.

Usage: unzip [-Z] [-opts[modifiers]] file[.zip] [list] [-x xlist] [-d exdir]
Default action is to extract files in list, except those in xlist, to exdir;
file[.zip] may be a wildcard. -Z => ZipInfo mode ("unzip -Z" for usage).

Good luck in your search for semantic perfection.

joeg · Post by **joeg** » April 17th, 2004, 7:30 am

../frank wrote:
JoeG wrote:I guess what I meant to ask was whether there's a verb used in regard to zip files that carries all the implications that "install" has for .exe files.

Perhaps you should use "unzip".... Here are the first few lines of the "usage" message from a popular unzip program in Linux:
Usage: unzip [-Z] [-opts[modifiers]] file[.zip] [list] [-x xlist] [-d exdir]
Default action is to extract files in list, except those in xlist, to exdir;
file[.zip] may be a wildcard. -Z => ZipInfo mode ("unzip -Z" for usage).

Good luck in your search for semantic perfection.

Hmmm, I wasn't really looking for "semantic perfection", I just wanted to make my postings a bit more precise. Is it wrong to use "install" in reference to the Firefox builds extracted from the zip files ...?

Joe
P.S. I find simple concepts like "right" and "wrong" perversely comforting but only in certain contexts. :crazyeyes:

GCG · Post by **GCG** » April 17th, 2004, 8:13 am

I reinstalled the "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040416 Firefox/0.8.0+" version and my extensions now install and function properly again.

joeg · Post by **joeg** » April 17th, 2004, 8:21 am

GCG wrote:I reinstalled the "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040416 Firefox/0.8.0+" version and my extensions now install and function properly again.

Yes, I had to reinstall the 16 Apr build and then everything was OK for me again, too.

Does tha mean you also had problems installing an extension in the 17 Apr tinderbox build?

Pike · Post by **Pike** » April 17th, 2004, 1:02 pm

Confirmed on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040417 Firefox/0.8.0+

:-(

ByTor201 · Post by **ByTor201** » April 17th, 2004, 1:13 pm

I have filed bug 240811 on this regression.

GCG · Post by **GCG** » April 17th, 2004, 2:21 pm

ByTor201 wrote:I have filed bug 240811 on this regression.

Thanks!

../frank · Post by **../frank** » April 17th, 2004, 3:49 pm

JoeG wrote:Hmmm, I wasn't really looking for "semantic perfection", I just wanted to make my postings a bit more precise. Is it wrong to use "install" in reference to the Firefox builds extracted from the zip files ...?

Joe
P.S. I find simple concepts like "right" and "wrong" perversely comforting but only in certain contexts.

I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed. :oops:

GCG · Post by **GCG** » April 18th, 2004, 7:45 am

ByTor201 wrote:I have filed bug 240811 on this regression.

Hi, I've posted an attachment to your bug report.

DynaBMan · Post by **DynaBMan** » April 21st, 2004, 6:29 am

I can confirm this bug also. Extensions started installing again after I went back to the build from 04-16-2004

latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install problem

latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install problem

Re: latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install pro

Re: latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install pro

Re: latest "tinderbox" -> Extension install pro

Re: latest "tinderbox" -> Ext. install problem

Same problem with the 20040417 Mac version of FFx

Re: Same problem with the 20040417 Mac version of FFx

FFX Extension Regression

Re: latest "tinderbox" -> Ext. install problem