Different features for sea / tar / zip builds?

[johann_p]

Somebody mentioned in another forum that it is possible for the different types of packages of nightly builds to contain different builds/enabled features? Is that so? I thought that these are just differently packaged and based on he same build?

[JLP]

I also wonder the same about Windows unicode builds. The file is smaller then non-unicode zip file so I guess it also has some features missing.

[laszlo]

I can imagine that there are differences between installer and non-installer builds sometimes, because specific features may need special preparations for packaging. That's why features sometimes show up in non-installer builds first. Does that make any sense?

[herman]

I can imagine that there are differences between installer and non-installer builds sometimes, because specific features may need special preparations for packaging. That's why features sometimes show up in non-installer builds first. Does that make any sense?

There is a 0.4 Mbyte difference in size of windows zips between 04-trunk builds and 08-trunk builds.
I switched to using zip builds sometime after I tested Netscape 7.0.
At that time, there were some problems related to profiles, and I got rid of them using zip builds.
It´s easy:
First time, I renamed the mozilla.org\mozilla directory to mozilla.org\bin,
and unzipped into mozilla.org directory, so the files went to mozilla.org\bin.
Then you can start mozilla as before.
Now, I´m renaming my bin directory so unzipping creates a new directory.
If the unzipped mozilla works, I can delete the renamed directory,
if unzipping fails (once a month), I delete the new folder and rename the old back to bin.

[johann_p]

The only reason why I am not using zip/tar builds is that there seem to be no talkback-enabled zip/tar builds. I dont like or need the installer, but I want to be able to send a talkback if Mozilla crashes.
Until recently I thought this would be the *only* difference. So can anyone actually *confirm* that there are differences in the number of included/enabled/checked in features between these builds that are *not just* related to possible different build times?

[herman]

The only reason why I am not using zip/tar builds is that there seem to be no talkback-enabled zip/tar builds. I dont like or need the installer, but I want to be able to send a talkback if Mozilla crashes.
Until recently I thought this would be the *only* difference. So can anyone actually *confirm* that there are differences in the number of included/enabled/checked in features between these builds that are *not just* related to possible different build times?

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nigh ... -04-trunk/
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nigh ... lkback.zip
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nigh ... -win32.zip

Wait for the next link to exist ;-) then compare the zips,
you are getting about .4 MB more for your money ;-)
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nigh ... -08-trunk/

And here are links especially for your friends ;-)

http://mozilla.kairo.at/
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/l10n ... lkback.zip


In mozilla nightlies, sometimes, there is only one zipped file available.
I also don´t know, if talkback is always mentioned in the name of the zip.
I prefer talkback-enabled zips for testing, normal zips for some applications, where the browser shouldn´t connect to the internet.

[ckjnigel]

I'm suspecting that they're trying to push away the unwashed masses. It could be that Netscape doesn't want many using a browser/mail product that is so much better than their last release. Especially now that Seth Spitzer is putting in great new mail/news stuff! I notice Seth said in the Moz mail/news ng a few days ago that packaging problems have delayed inclusion. Today in the secnews ngs they're saying the *sea has all, even though it clearly is smaller.
BTW, can anybody explain why these new features would complicate packaging in the *.sea.exe installer?

[herman]

I'm suspecting that they're trying to push away the unwashed masses. It could be that Netscape doesn't want many using a browser/mail product that is so much better than their last release. Especially now that Seth Spitzer is putting in great new mail/news stuff! I notice Seth said in the Moz mail/news ng a few days ago that packaging problems have delayed inclusion. Today in the secnews ngs they're saying the *sea has all, even though it clearly is smaller.
BTW, can anybody explain why these new features would complicate packaging in the *.sea.exe installer?

Anybody can start an exe-file for installing on windows,
but the zip-versions needed some manual work, I suppose,
so they told zips us are for developers only.
Today installing zips is easier than installing exes ;-)
because the zips are self-registering.

New features have to be configured by the user, so they have to write release notes. Maybe these new features are coming with 1.2 ?
Or they are silently tested running in the nightlies, and coming with 1.3?

Sebastien Delahaye makes installerversions of Phoenix,
you can have a look at the details ( scripts ) over there:

http://seb.delahaye.net/phoenix/

[asa]

"Re: Why no responses from top Moz ppl?"

What on earth are you talking about?

--Asa

[xah]

If someone believes that there is a difference between sea and zip, download both, install both, and compare files. I doubt there is any difference.

[mythdraug]

If someone believes that there is a difference between sea and zip, download both, install both, and compare files. I doubt there is any difference.

Have <i>you</i> tried that recently? JunkMail was broken for a day or two in the sea because a .dll was not included. I've yet to see a sea that has views in Mail/News.

[xah]

Is there a bug filed on that?

[xah]

Uh, yeah. This sucks.

Looks like it could be http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176114

Between the problems with Bugzilla, the sea builds, 1.3a crashing frequently, and the 1.2 latest sea build, once installed, saying it is 1.3a, a good description of the situation would be confusion, or perhaps chaos.