[CLOSED THREAD] Portable Firefox

[CritterNYC]

I have updated the Portable Firefox package to 0.9.2:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portable_firefox/

If you already have 0.9.1, you can just apply the patch:
http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/mo ... php?id=154

[CritterNYC]

Just wanted to reiterate that I am avoiding using a Javascript or a VBScript to launch Firefox using relative paths in my package. The reason for this is that the JS and VBS files are going to have issues on different computers. Some computers will not have them associated. Others will have an antivirus program (like Norton Antivirus) throw up a warning or prevent the script from running altogether. My computer, for instance, has Dreamweaver associated with .js files as its default. Overall, the goal is to create something that just works, and if, for now, that requires a .bat file and a quick flash of a command window, then that's what it will be.

On that note, I'm trying out fflaunch as a possible option. I've just added it as an option to my download page, preconfigured to work with my package. I'd like some feedback on whether we'd like to include this by default. The main issue is that it does not appear to support a relative path. It needs a full path from the root of the drive (though it does not need the drive letter), so in this case, firefox would need to be installed in x:\firefox and the profile at x:\firefox\profile (where X is your USB drive letter). This is the default for my package, but some people may be putting firefox in a different sub-directory, in which case the .bat file would work, but the launcher would fail.

I've got it available here (under Additional Options):
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portab ... /#launcher

Please try it out and post your results and thoughts back to the thread. If most people are comfortable with requiring that firefox be configured with x:\firefox\profile, then I'll go ahead and add it into the main package. Maybe we can get the author of fflaunch to update it to use relative paths.

Regards,
John

[tracon]

Critter,

Thanks for posting fflaunch. It does look for a path w/o a drive letter, but this path is easily configurable in the fflaunch.ini file.

If you open this up you can change your program path and profile path to whatever you want.

(i.e. ffpath=\crittersapps\mozilla\firefox and ffprofile=\crittersprofiles\profile\work)

You can also change the amount of time the splash screen is shown.

Does this address your concerns or are you looking for something else?

[usenet3]

they should have been relative locations from the beginning, but they weren't.

That may not be possible. Until recently, I was using a hard drive that was stupidly partitioned: a small C:, a large D:, using Windows. To preserve space on C:, where the os had to be, I installed Mozilla on D:, but the profile was on C: (where Windows os resides). If extensions were relative, they would not have worked on my system. Just an FYI while before you file a bug.

[CritterNYC]

Critter,

Thanks for posting fflaunch. It does look for a path w/o a drive letter, but this path is easily configurable in the fflaunch.ini file.
If you open this up you can change your program path and profile path to whatever you want.
(i.e. ffpath=\crittersapps\mozilla\firefox and ffprofile=\crittersprofiles\profile\work)
You can also change the amount of time the splash screen is shown.
Does this address your concerns or are you looking for something else?

I've already editted the ini file. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, fflaunch doesn't truely support relative paths. The .BAT file will work wherever you drop the zip file of firefox, without any alteration to the configuration. You can take the existing ZIP and drop it in D:\firefox\ or F:\Apps\Firefox or whatever, and it will just work. FFlaunch uses a path relative to the drive root only. So, I have to hard code into the INI file the path firefox is going to be placed in. Right now, it is coded for D:\firefox\ or E:\firefox\ only. Moving it to D:\Apps\Firefox\ will break fflaunch, but the .bat file will still work unaltered. That was the point I was making.

My question to everyone is... do we care? Would having a hardcoded path to \firefox\ be acceptable?

Regards,
John

[usenet3]

fflaunch doesn't truely support relative paths. The .BAT file will work wherever you drop the zip file of firefox, without any alteration to the configuration. [snip] FFlaunch uses a path relative to the drive root only.

My question to everyone is... do we care? Would having a hardcoded path to \firefox\ be acceptable?

<abbr title="it seems to me">ISTM</abbr> that a launcher is more friendly for the less computer-savvy and less intrusive, so that's the way to go. There's nothing stopping someone from <em>not</em> using the launcher and using a batch file instead. If this project has a home, why not put the batch file there as an alternative way to start the portable FF?

[big_gie]

I really don't like .bat files... If a launcher was avaible, I'll use it.

I prefer the less possible hardcoded path. Its sad that extensions needs full path; Why would FF support being on a usb drive but not extensions?? The whole point to FF is to have a light browser (compared to mozilla) but if you can't use it since you can't add any extensions!

Extensions are, most of the time, inside the profile dir (else they are in the program dir). Why would it need absolute path? a relative path to the profile dir or to the extension dir could take out problems...

[usenet3]

Extensions are, most of the time, inside the profile dir (else they are in the program dir). Why would it need absolute path? a relative path to the profile dir or to the extension dir could take out problems...

Because the profile directory is not always on the same drive as the program. On a Windows system, for example, the extension might be referenced by d: if it's in the program directory, c: if it's in the profile directory.

[big_gie]

Extensions are, most of the time, inside the profile dir (else they are in the program dir). Why would it need absolute path? a relative path to the profile dir or to the extension dir could take out problems...

Because the profile directory is not always on the same drive as the program. On a Windows system, for example, the extension might be referenced by d: if it's in the program directory, c: if it's in the profile directory.

Of course, but the extension folder is ALWAYS inside the profile dir!
For example, I have my profile under F:\Firefox\Profile\092\fr (USB drive) and the program in D:\Mozilla\Firefox\092\fr (D:\ = %ProgramFiles%). So I run:
D:\Mozilla\Firefox\092\fr\firefox.exe -Profile F:\Firefox\Profile\092\fr
And FF is working. As I installed extensions on this computer, they are stored on the F: drive, and my extensions setup (chrome.rdf) points to F:. I wasnt able to put relative path in chrome.rdf (the profile wasnt loaded), so I need to change them manually each time I change computer.

My point is that FF doesn't need asbolute path to work. It can accept -Profile Profile/ as the command line. It will look in the program directory for a subfolder called Profile. Why would extensions need full path? All they need is "The extension files are located in the same directory as the profile, under extensions" so inside chrome.rdf, having relative path won't break things. Well, it does, and it shouldnt...

An extension installed in the profile dir won't refer (and shouldnt, I think), to files in the program dir, and vice versa. So they don't need absolute paths.

[usenet3]

the profile directory is not always on the same drive as the program. On a Windows system, for example, the extension might be referenced by d: if it's in the program directory, c: if it's in the profile directory.

Of course, but the extension folder is ALWAYS inside the profile dir!

I started a post to contradict what you said, but then changed my mind. I see your point now. To find all extensions, <ABBR title="Firefox">FF</ABBR> need only look in two places: its own program directory, and inside the profile directory. And if it finds the profile, it should find the extensions therein, without need of a drive id.

[big_gie]

To find all extensions, <ABBR title="Firefox">FF</ABBR> need only look in two places: its own program directory, and inside the profile directory. And if it finds the profile, it should find the extensions therein, without need of a drive id.

Exactly. Their shouldnt be ANY absolute path regarding themes/extensions.

[CritterNYC]

Ok, let me break it down into our options...

1. BAT FILE: Use the BAT file as is and make the launcher (fflaunch.exe) an optional download. This will allow the firefox app to run in any directory unaltered. This is the current setup

2. LAUNCHER: Use the launcher as the default. The user will be *required* to unzip it to x:\firefox or the launcher will fail, without editting an INI file.

3. BOTH: Both will be installed and I'll make a note as to how to launch it using either one.

My biggest concern with #2 (The Launcher) or 3 is that we will be locked to x:\firefox without editting INI files. Thoughts?

<i>Note that x:\ in the above options can be any drive letter.</i>

[big_gie]

I would prefer the launcher. Maybe it could be modified to correct relative path issues?

[CritterNYC]

Alright... I figured, what the heck, I'll learn the basics of the Nullsoft Installer scripting language. I've created a NEW launcher that will work with the relative path: PortableFirefox.exe. It's up for download on my page (called Launcher II):

http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portab ... efault.asp

It's a small exe file that drops into the firefox directory. It launches firefox using the profile in the profile/ subdirectory. No INI files. No worries about where on your drive you put all of this. I decided not to include a splash screen either, as Firefox doesn't. The one negative is that this cannot be place in the drive root and launch the application in the firefox/ subdirectory. Perhaps I'll include mine by default and fflaunch as an option for those wishing an alternate directory structure. Thoughts?

Regards,
John

[big_gie]

Really nice :)

Though I won't really use it: only my profile is on my usb key and TB's profile is taking over 150 Mb on it already...