MozillaZine

SeaMonkey 2.2

Discussion about Seamonkey builds
ElTxolo

User avatar
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: July 30th, 2007, 9:35 am
Location: Localhost

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 6:57 am

How to Ask Questions The Smart Way - How to Report Bugs Effectively ;)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20190804 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20191208 SeaMonkey/2.53.1

rsx11m
Moderator
 
Posts: 14429
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 7:04 am

It became necessary as it apparently broke the building process. One can still disable or remove unwanted extensions after the installation, and existing profiles may not be affected (I yet have to test that). It's hopefully just a temporary measure until Callek figured out how to work around the installer issue.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 20074
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 11:02 am

> I think this change (#Bug 666518: Stop making extensions optional in SeaMonkey's installer) won't like some people.

I'm sure they will, but it's not really a big deal, IMO.

> existing profiles may not be affected

As of 2.2b2, an existing Profile cZ will be broken (the old remaining unchanged [requiring a version bump for compatibility] by the 2.2b2 install, hence marked as not compatible).
Guess we'll see if 2.2b3 gets it to update.
(Or you could manually update with the xpi in the \distribution\extensions\ directory)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

jaroclay

User avatar
 
Posts: 660
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:33 pm
Location: Pacific NW, USA

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 11:07 am

I always do a custom install as I do not need the DOM Inspector installed. With SM 2.2B2, I select the custom install and it treats the installation as if I am doing a normal/full installation - no screen to deselect any available options. This was not the case with SM 2.2B1. Also, the moving contacts issue is still an issue - at least on my end.

Reporting what little I am seeing - I test by using SM in my daily activities.
Never judge a day by the weather | The best things in life aren't things | Tell the truth - There is less to remember | No rain - No rainbows | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 20074
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 11:25 am

> I select the custom install and it treats the installation as if I am doing a normal/full installation - no screen to deselect any available options.

>> It became necessary as it apparently broke the building process. One can still disable or remove unwanted extensions after the installation

>>> it's not really a big deal, IMO

AFAIK, what happens with (after) a removal is of yet unknown.

(Thinking there should be a sticky relating to this on 2.2's release. A place for everyone to express their displeasure :lol:.)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

jaroclay

User avatar
 
Posts: 660
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:33 pm
Location: Pacific NW, USA

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 11:40 am

Oops, I forgot to mention that I removed the installed extensions after the installation completed. Thus far, I have observed no adverse issues but only removed the DOM inspector. Thanks for pointing this out, therube.

I agree, a sticky should be created for those of us using 2.2B... to have a common place to voice potential bugs, and solutions until SM 2.2 is officially released.

I am still perplexed with the address book issue as my testing continually shows it was not a problem until SM 2.2.
Never judge a day by the weather | The best things in life aren't things | Tell the truth - There is less to remember | No rain - No rainbows | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

rsx11m
Moderator
 
Posts: 14429
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Post Posted June 29th, 2011, 11:52 am

therube wrote:As of 2.2b2, an existing Profile cZ will be broken (the old remaining unchanged [requiring a version bump for compatibility] by the 2.2b2 install, hence marked as not compatible).

I thought it's supposed to check with AMO for an up-to-date version as the fallback?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666492#c5

ElTxolo

User avatar
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: July 30th, 2007, 9:35 am
Location: Localhost

Post Posted June 30th, 2011, 7:15 am

rsx11m wrote:It became necessary as it apparently broke the building process. One can still disable or remove unwanted extensions after the installation, and existing profiles may not be affected (I yet have to test that). It's hopefully just a temporary measure until Callek figured out how to work around the installer issue.

As always, thanks for your explanation, rsx11m ;)


Cheers! Image
How to Ask Questions The Smart Way - How to Report Bugs Effectively ;)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20190804 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20191208 SeaMonkey/2.53.1

Iggyz
 
Posts: 14
Joined: April 11th, 2011, 4:46 pm

Post Posted June 30th, 2011, 7:44 am

"I'm sure they will, but it's not really a big deal, IMO."

Interesting that you seem to feel user choice is a joke. I also believe in ease of use and functionality. I shouldn't have to go back and uninstall something I didn't want in the first place.

Your opinion seems to be that of a malware writer, spyware maker or adware maker. Force an install of unwanted items onto the user in the hopes they won't have a clue.

The providers of NoScript plugin have this same lame attitude. It's funny how they have since re-authored their FAQ to no longer reflect that attitude.

rsx11m
Moderator
 
Posts: 14429
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Post Posted June 30th, 2011, 8:31 am

Iggyz wrote:Force an install of unwanted items onto the user in the hopes they won't have a clue.

That's nonsense. As stated, it's an interim solution for something that broke in the installer in order to get 2.2 out without the delay that was seen with the recent 2.1 release, and to investigate for a future update how to make it work again. Please read previous posts before making pointless accusations.

vladmir
 
Posts: 319
Joined: October 18th, 2004, 9:47 am

Post Posted July 2nd, 2011, 11:37 pm

And what about release of 2.2b3?
Nothing in news and main page.

jaroclay

User avatar
 
Posts: 660
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:33 pm
Location: Pacific NW, USA

Post Posted July 3rd, 2011, 1:05 am

vladmir wrote:And what about release of 2.2b3?
Nothing in news and main page.

Good point - I was unable to access the SM site earlier today and assumed it was due to the site news being updated. But, nothing has changed.

Not a big issue, though, since it is a beta version and those who like testing or having the latest and greatest know where to go to download the latest versions. I check the builds directory listing about once a week and is how I saw B3 was being released.

It is important, though, that updates and news be shared in a timely fashion. Depending on who does this, the upcoming US holiday and long weekend may have had an impact in this area. :wink:
Never judge a day by the weather | The best things in life aren't things | Tell the truth - There is less to remember | No rain - No rainbows | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

Philip Chee

User avatar
 
Posts: 6475
Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:03 pm

Post Posted July 3rd, 2011, 1:28 am

jtek wrote:
vladmir wrote:And what about release of 2.2b3?
Nothing in news and main page.

Good point - I was unable to access the SM site earlier today and assumed it was due to the site news being updated. But, nothing has changed.

Not a big issue, though, since it is a beta version and those who like testing or having the latest and greatest know where to go to download the latest versions. I check the builds directory listing about once a week and is how I saw B3 was being released.

It is important, though, that updates and news be shared in a timely fashion. Depending on who does this, the upcoming US holiday and long weekend may have had an impact in this area. :wink:

We (KaiRo and InvisibleSmiley) pushed an update to the website. The web server didn't like something in the RSS feed and the wheels fell off. Unfortunately it's on a weekend and it took someone a while to notice that the site wasn't working. Should be fixed for now.

Phil

vladmir
 
Posts: 319
Joined: October 18th, 2004, 9:47 am

Post Posted July 3rd, 2011, 5:00 am

irc://irc.mozilla.org/seamonkey
"Topic for #seamonkey is “SeaMonkey 2.1 and 2.2b2 are out ...
Topic for #seamonkey was set by RattyAway on 29 июня 2011 г."

And no info here so 2.2b3 is not released at this moment.

I see all circumstances but I just need info about time of official release.

ElTxolo

User avatar
 
Posts: 2484
Joined: July 30th, 2007, 9:35 am
Location: Localhost

Post Posted July 3rd, 2011, 6:20 am

vladmir wrote:irc://irc.mozilla.org/seamonkey
"Topic for #seamonkey is “SeaMonkey 2.1 and 2.2b2 are out ...
Topic for #seamonkey was set by RattyAway on 29 июня 2011 г."

And no info here so 2.2b3 is not released at this moment.

I see all circumstances but I just need info about time of official release.

Image
SeaMonkey 2.2 Beta 3 - Released July 2, 2011 Image
How to Ask Questions The Smart Way - How to Report Bugs Effectively ;)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20190804 SeaMonkey/2.49.5
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20191208 SeaMonkey/2.53.1

Return to SeaMonkey Builds


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests