Re: update to 2.2 ... doesn't...

[sean nathan bean]

WLS sent me the following::

sean nathan bean wrote:

my update has been spinning for a couple of hours now...

sean



Originally installed manually or from a software management update?

My SM 2.1 was installed from the mozilla repository, but openSUSE forgot
to take out the Check for Updates menu item like they normally do and of
course it wouldn't update, using that menu item.

I installed SM 2.2 from the tarball.


originally installed from a tarball too... peppermint Two...

so uncheck the updater then...

sean


--
You step in the stream...
  But the water has moved on...
   This page is not here.
 courtesy of TagZilla 0.066.2
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

TESTING WANTED: 2.0.14->2.2 Major Updates

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

Hello,

I *just* pushed (to the beta channel) 2.0.14->2.2 Major Update Offers.

I would appreciate help testing these from anyone who feels up to it.

Current Known Issues:
* Only en-US billboard is up, will be asking l10n teams to localize for 
me soon. (unsure at this time if we will offer updates to locales that 
don't translate in time, or what)
* The update *reports* that our built in extensions will disable, this 
is really untrue and is due to a toolkit bug in Gecko 1.9.1 (SeaMonkey 
2.0).
** I might have a workable solution to this, but it basically entails 
having AMO lie to anyone with a ver of those extensions that we shipped 
with in 2.0.


What I am looking for is basically any other issues you encounter, from 
wording, from UX, from after-update-problems, etc.


TIP: To change from the release update channel to the beta update 
channel, in your APPLICATION install folder, (with seamonkey closed) 
open /defaults/pref/channel-prefs.js and change "release" to "beta" in 
there.


Thank You,
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[JeffM]

Cruz, Jaime wrote:
>The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties
>keeping up with the upgrade cycle,
>
Asa Dotzler (who is not authorized to speak for Mozilla)
made a comment that caused even more corps to dump Firefox.
(Having to test for breakage before deploying
then test AGAIN soon afterwards has corporate users really pissed.)

Slashdot commenters mentioned several times
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/1442205/Firefox-Is-For-Regular-Users-Not-Businesses
that Gecko needs a Long-Term Support version
(a concept that Ubuntu has used successfully since June 2006,
where security patches are backported for 3 years).
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Import embargoes against TB5 and FF5?

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

On 7/8/2011 11:42 AM, Graham P Davis wrote:

I thought I'd have another try with Seamonkey 2.1 but ran into a couple
of problems.

(1) I thought I saw SM say it was importing FF5 bookmarks but must have
been mistaken. I know other browsers can't manage that trick but would
have thought another Mozilla product would have been up to the task.
Silly me! Don't worry, I know the way to get round this one - export
bookmarks from FF as HTML and then import them into SM - but it's a pity
the left hand doesn't know what the right one is up to.

(2) Most mail folders and account info was imported more-or-less OK but
"Blogs&  News Feeds" is a disaster area - nothing imported there.
  (a) I tried exporting from TB5 as OPML file - or files, it only seems to
try one file at a time - but this was a total failure. I don't know where
the fault lies but suspect TB5 as the file was empty apart from the date.
Having said that, the "Manage subscriptions" import option may be as
useless as the "add" button (see (c)).
  (b) I then tried copying the TB5 files (mail/feeds folder and feeds.msf)
into the SM folder but that made no difference.
  (c) Next, I tried adding the feeds from scratch using "Manage
subscriptions" but it couldn't manage to do anything. Clicked on "add"
and then pasted in the HTML for the feed, then "OK", but nothing
happened. Did the identical thing with TB5 using the same link and it
worked fine.

Can someone help?


Sadly I know very little about item 2. But at least as far as Item 1 and 
import in general...


We have (sadly) not spent much time lately on import, not from a lack of 
want but from a lack of time. One of my (soonish) goals on a personal 
level is to get our import code attacked, updated, and refreshed.


To allow a better import experience and wider variety of importing code. 
(I *think* [but have not verified] that our import code for bookmarks 
from Firefox currently looks for the old [pre-places] bookmarks.html on 
their end, and tries to import that, rather than using the DB like we 
also use now).


If any community member, who knows a bit about programming (warning: 
C/C++ is required as well for this code), I will be happy to mentor!


Hell even a comparison of _prefs_ would be helpful (which can be done by 
a non-programmer and would help even for the case of potentially 
updating our pref UI/organization to better reflect reality -- not as 
high a priority to me as import).


If anyone is up for one of these tasks, feel free to reply to this 
thread and we can probably work to set "something" up.


--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[Cecil Bankston]

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

Cecil Bankston wrote:

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties keeping up with the
upgrade cycle, and several add-ons I count on aren't yet compatible with
2.2 (they just BARELY got compatibility with 2.1). This really is a
STUPID decision on the part of the Mozilla organization.

And now I've got this damn thing nagging me to upgrade when I CAN'T yet.

Time to start looking at Opera and/or Chrome if this nonsense keeps up.


So far all the addons I use have installed and worked normally after a
simple edit of the maxVersion value in the install.rdf files in their
xpi installation archives. When you browse to the web page for the
addon, just right-click the link for the installer and choose "Save link
target as" to save the xpi file to your computer instead of
left-clicking to install it. With 7-Zip it's easy to open the archive
(xpi), edit the install.rdf, and add the edited version back to the
archive. Then just double-click the edited xpi to get SeaMonkey to
install it.


Doesn't help with IETab+. It's got a plug-in that flat out refuses to
work under 2.2. Funny thing is, the Add-on shows as "compatible," but it
just doesn't work. When I upgraded from 2.0 to 2.1 the install.rdf trick
worked. I now have the version that OFFICIALLY supports 2.1, but it
doesn't work at all under 2.2.


I use IETab + v2.03.20110625.  It appears to work perfectly in my SM 2.2.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 08/07/2011 12:49, Rex told the world:
> Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
> imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
> every other week.
> Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
> end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
> Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
> and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
> last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.
> 
> I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
> what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I had similar thoughts about the new versioning scheme at first. The
thing seemed, at first glance, intended to make the marketing guys happy
by artificially inflating the version numbers. But then I realized that
the "rapid-release train" is an entirely different approach to the
release thing.

The traditional system is kinda like writing a textbook, or an
encyclopedia. You research, you write, you polish, you send it for
review, rinse and repeat, and it's done when it's done. Then you
distribute it for years essentially unchanged. Let's call it "Version 1.0."

Perhaps you add an appendix after a couple years (without considering it
a new edition), but you don't touch the main body -- that's kinda like
"version 1.1": you add a few things that are useful but don't alter the
main work.

And of course you fix typos on reprints -- but the bulk of the work is
static. That's kinda like "Release 1.1.1.": you add nothing new, just
fix bugs.

Then, after a long time, you do substantially revise your textbook and
release a new edition -- let's call it "Version 2.0." Then the cycle
starts again.

The rapid-release train, on the other hand, is more similar to a
periodical, like a catalog or those restaurant guides that come in the
newspapers. You have regular deadlines. Your section on Thai restaurants
may not be quite perfect, but the thing has to go to press, and it's
better than nothing, so you put it in anyway. Next week/month, you will
have an improved version. The thing is always evolving, but there are no
clear breakpoints. And you won't release a "corrected" guide between
editions.

Of course, Mozilla was kinda pushed into it by the way Chrome has been
doing the rapid-release thing. But it's not a bad idea in and of itself.

The traditional way of doing releases has its origins back when
distribution was slow, and getting a new version of the software was a
complicated process involving copying physical media. So you wanted to
make damn certain that whatever you released was not missing any
intended functionality, because the next major release was two or three
years away. In the meantime, you *might* release patches (which, being
smaller, were slightly easier to distribute) to fix problems.

Nowadays, with easy Internet distribution, keeping old branches active
is less useful. If you are going to release a patched version, you might
as well include the new stuff that is ready for public consumption.

With the new feature releases being spread out, and with the lack of
maintenance-only releases, there's no longer any practical difference
between a "major" and a "minor" release -- so you might as well adopt a
simpler numbering scheme. In fact, some projects done away with serial
version numbers entirely and went with release dates, like Ubuntu.

Perhaps they have the right idea -- perhaps the Mozilla community should
have jumped from "Firefox 3.6" to "Firefox 11.03" and then "11.06", and
Seamonkey should have jumped from "2.0" to "11.06." But such a large
jump would have flagged even more extensions as "incompatible." But it's
a thought for next year -- by then, Firefox and Gecko should be going
double digits.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Burberry.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey 2.2 Release

[Philipp van Hüllen]

Just to mention, that for me 2 SM2.2 (auto-)updates (Windows Vista and 
Mac OS 10.6.8) went fine the last day, based on SM2.1 installations.


I'm actually still maintaining mail folders (well, "keeping them in 
direct access archive mode" would be more precise) with mails from 1997 
without having at any time in between the need to actively convert 
something.
(Though changing OS in between a few times. Solaris (university), Win9x, 
Linux, WinXP, Solaris+Win2k+Vista (at work), Mac OS 10.4 -> 10.6. And HW 
(Sparc, i86, UltraSparc, PowerPC, i86 again) too.) It's somehow always 
been there...

(Including some predecessors maybe...)

While at the same time tons of things (big and small) have been added 
around it...

... mostly for the good.

Glad your are here...

Best regards
Philipp
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[Cruz, Jaime]

Cecil Bankston wrote:

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties keeping up with the
upgrade cycle, and several add-ons I count on aren't yet compatible with
2.2 (they just BARELY got compatibility with 2.1). This really is a
STUPID decision on the part of the Mozilla organization.

And now I've got this damn thing nagging me to upgrade when I CAN'T yet.

Time to start looking at Opera and/or Chrome if this nonsense keeps up.


So far all the addons I use have installed and worked normally after a
simple edit of the maxVersion value in the install.rdf files in their
xpi installation archives. When you browse to the web page for the
addon, just right-click the link for the installer and choose "Save link
target as" to save the xpi file to your computer instead of
left-clicking to install it. With 7-Zip it's easy to open the archive
(xpi), edit the install.rdf, and add the edited version back to the
archive. Then just double-click the edited xpi to get SeaMonkey to
install it.


Doesn't help with IETab+.  It's got a plug-in that flat out refuses to 
work under 2.2.  Funny thing is, the Add-on shows as "compatible," but 
it just doesn't work.  When I upgraded from 2.0 to 2.1 the install.rdf 
trick worked.  I now have the version that OFFICIALLY supports 2.1, but 
it doesn't work at all under 2.2.


--
Jaime A. Cruz
President
Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club
http://www.nassauwings.org/

AMA District 34
http://www.AMADistrict34.com/
Pop's Run
http://www.popsrun.org/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Why do all my addons have to break when ever I update?

[Bill Davidsen]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

JeffM schrieb:

...then there is Google included an actual API for extensions
in their Chrome Browser.


There's an "Add-On SDK" for Mozilla software that does the same. Still,
add-ons built with that only or the Google Chrome API can do so much
less than full-blown add-ons for Mozilla products that I don't expect
all add-ons to switch to using it.

The thing is, in most cases the add-on didn't break, it just needs to have 
install.rdf updated. And that is really hostile to users, when a pop-up could 
ask if the user wanted to install and warned that it might break things. That is 
so much safer than having users unpacking, modifying, repacking, and then trying 
an add-on.


Follow this logic: not only are there more users who can figure out a [TRY IT] 
button without messing up, but the number of people distributing hacked versions 
of add-ons would drop to zero. Sooner or later someone will figure out that 
offering an "updated" add-on is a great way to slip in malware.



These are the prices you pay for being a pioneer:


Not just for being a pioneer, but also for allowing many more degrees of
freedom that others.

Could you at least hint WHY a working "disable compatibility check" in button or 
about:config form is not available, while developers tell people to hack the 
add-on which has higher risks. The add-on manager whines that compatibility 
checking is disabled, but clearly it isn't. At least a button would force the 
user to consider the issue before blindly hacking install.rdf.


--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Skipping version 2.1

[Bill Davidsen]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Daniel schrieb:

Hey, KaiRo, when you talk here about machines for further SM 2.0.x
updates, and elsewhere about machines for 64bit Linux builds, are these
machines under the full time control of the SeaMonkey Council, or are
they Mozilla owned machines that the SM council gets occasional access
to??


Mozilla-owned machines that are dedicated to working for the SeaMonkey
project. Currently those are a few Mac minis and a few VMs for Windows
and Linux, but Mozilla has ordered a few more Mac minis and physical
machines for Windows and Linux for us, right now it's a question of
getting them mounted in racks and set up, as far as I understand. This
should get done in the next weeks. We will see if that's enough to
increase Linux64 support. Callek will work on that.

I really don't understand how there can be enough build resource to build 
Linux64 for several versions on a daily basis and not enough to build one for a 
release. I would hope your package system can build a set of tar.gz, RPM, deb, 
etc from the compiled binaries and spit them back without recompiling.


I also think that major Linux releases, like Fedora, SuSE, and Ubuntu would 
build the packages if you pushed the release source to them with an email to do 
the build. Fedora has been very good about building when I report a new version 
available.


Of course, I took the easy way out and just run a daily, then update 
occasionally. For the most part the bugs are getting down in the noise.



--
Bill Davidsen 
  We are not out of the woods yet, but we know the direction and have
taken the first step. The steps are many, but finite in number, and if
we persevere we will reach our destination.  -me, 2010


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[Rufus]

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties keeping up with the
upgrade cycle, and several add-ons I count on aren't yet compatible with
2.2 (they just BARELY got compatibility with 2.1). This really is a
STUPID decision on the part of the Mozilla organization.

And now I've got this damn thing nagging me to upgrade when I CAN'T yet.

Time to start looking at Opera and/or Chrome if this nonsense keeps up.



It's really just a scheduling/accounting game...we do the same thing 
with software builds where I work - nearly identical, and we laugh every 
time a decimal point gets added where one wasn't "planned".  That's why 
I said it was "so familiar it hurt".


You just need to keep up add-ons manually until everything settles out, 
I'd wager.  And part of my reasoning for not even looking at it until 
about release 2.3 just based on what I've been reading here.


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[Cecil Bankston]

Cruz, Jaime wrote:

The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties keeping up with the
upgrade cycle, and several add-ons I count on aren't yet compatible with
2.2 (they just BARELY got compatibility with 2.1). This really is a
STUPID decision on the part of the Mozilla organization.

And now I've got this damn thing nagging me to upgrade when I CAN'T yet.

Time to start looking at Opera and/or Chrome if this nonsense keeps up.

So far all the addons I use have installed and worked normally after a 
simple edit of the maxVersion value in the install.rdf files in their 
xpi installation archives.  When you browse to the web page for the 
addon, just right-click the link for the installer and choose "Save link 
target as" to save the xpi file to your computer instead of 
left-clicking to install it.  With 7-Zip it's easy to open the archive 
(xpi), edit the install.rdf, and add the edited version back to the 
archive.  Then just double-click the edited xpi to get SeaMonkey to 
install it.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Import embargoes against TB5 and FF5?

[Graham P Davis]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:23:01 -0400, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

> Graham P Davis wrote:
>> I thought I'd have another try with Seamonkey 2.1 but ran into a couple
>> of problems.
>>
>> (1) I thought I saw SM say it was importing FF5 bookmarks but must have
>> been mistaken. I know other browsers can't manage that trick but would
>> have thought another Mozilla product would have been up to the task.
>> Silly me! Don't worry, I know the way to get round this one - export
>> bookmarks from FF as HTML and then import them into SM - but it's a
>> pity the left hand doesn't know what the right one is up to.
>>
>> (2) Most mail folders and account info was imported more-or-less OK but
>> "Blogs&  News Feeds" is a disaster area - nothing imported there.
>>   (a) I tried exporting from TB5 as OPML file - or files, it only seems
>>   to
>> try one file at a time - but this was a total failure. I don't know
>> where the fault lies but suspect TB5 as the file was empty apart from
>> the date.
>> Having said that, the "Manage subscriptions" import option may be as
>> useless as the "add" button (see (c)).
>>   (b) I then tried copying the TB5 files (mail/feeds folder and
>>   feeds.msf)
>> into the SM folder but that made no difference.
>>   (c) Next, I tried adding the feeds from scratch using "Manage
>> subscriptions" but it couldn't manage to do anything. Clicked on "add"
>> and then pasted in the HTML for the feed, then "OK", but nothing
>> happened. Did the identical thing with TB5 using the same link and it
>> worked fine.
>>
>> Can someone help?
>>
> Well, you know, 2.1 is now history, since the release of 2.2. 2.2 is
> supposedly (mostly) the maintenance release for 2.1. They hope to have
> the automatic updater module for 2.0 (& 2.1 ?)
> to 2.2 ready in about 2 weeks, And then 2.3 is due to be ready about a
> month after that. They are already concentrating on the development of
> 2.5 So really what do you want, hope for?
> I'm sure? it will all be fixed in the next release.  :)  :/
> 
> Dth?

Oh crikey! I was thinking of getting away from the stupidity of the FF 
and TB galloping releases but that seems to be a false hope. As you can 
see from my sig, I've been with these products for quite a while but if 
this lunacy continues, I'm not sure how much longer I can stay.  


-- 
Graham Davis, UK
User of Mozillarish stuff since Netscape 1.2N.
Running KDE 4.6.5 on openSUSE 11.4. 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Really HATE the accelerated release cycle

[Cruz, Jaime]

The add-on authors seem to be having difficulties keeping up with the 
upgrade cycle, and several add-ons I count on aren't yet compatible with 
2.2 (they just BARELY got compatibility with 2.1).  This really is a 
STUPID decision on the part of the Mozilla organization.


And now I've got this damn thing nagging me to upgrade when I CAN'T yet.

Time to start looking at Opera and/or Chrome if this nonsense keeps up.

--
Jaime A. Cruz
President
Nassau Wings Motorcycle Club
http://www.nassauwings.org/

AMA District 34
http://www.AMADistrict34.com/
Pop's Run
http://www.popsrun.org/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


Have you ever seen gas(oline) price wars between competing pumping
stations in a neighbourhood? :)
Though in the case of SM they do have the justification of needing
to track FF and TB.



I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


Well really what does the label attached to the release matter?
What matters is the lack of stability and requirement for frequent
patch releases, whatever version label gets attached to them.


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're
all broken.


Well now, and how are the equivalent extensions and plugins faring for
the new versions of FF and TB??? Have those Mozilla product development
teams managed to better persuade the extension writers to coordinate
with their new versions?
It is, after all, the extension writers/maintainers who have to make
the appropriate changes to their products.
Of course one can argue some about the details, of needed/gratuitous
changes to the interface requirements, ... , and coordination with
these developers.

There have been some postings here about how to make some of the
current version of plugins work with the new SM.

--
Rostyk
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Why do all my addons have to break when ever I update?

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-07-07 5:12 PM, goldtech wrote:

Please explain why it's necessary for addons to break when ever a new
version of FF or SM comes out. Can not it be coded so that all the
tools I use will continue to work? I don't get it - would someone
explain?


Someone asked a similar question in the Thunderbird support newsgroup, 
and here's a link to my answer: 
.


--
Chris Ilias 
Newsgroup moderator
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Import embargoes against TB5 and FF5?

[Rostyslaw Lewyckyj]

Graham P Davis wrote:

I thought I'd have another try with Seamonkey 2.1 but ran into a couple
of problems.

(1) I thought I saw SM say it was importing FF5 bookmarks but must have
been mistaken. I know other browsers can't manage that trick but would
have thought another Mozilla product would have been up to the task.
Silly me! Don't worry, I know the way to get round this one - export
bookmarks from FF as HTML and then import them into SM - but it's a pity
the left hand doesn't know what the right one is up to.

(2) Most mail folders and account info was imported more-or-less OK but
"Blogs&  News Feeds" is a disaster area - nothing imported there.
  (a) I tried exporting from TB5 as OPML file - or files, it only seems to
try one file at a time - but this was a total failure. I don't know where
the fault lies but suspect TB5 as the file was empty apart from the date.
Having said that, the "Manage subscriptions" import option may be as
useless as the "add" button (see (c)).
  (b) I then tried copying the TB5 files (mail/feeds folder and feeds.msf)
into the SM folder but that made no difference.
  (c) Next, I tried adding the feeds from scratch using "Manage
subscriptions" but it couldn't manage to do anything. Clicked on "add"
and then pasted in the HTML for the feed, then "OK", but nothing
happened. Did the identical thing with TB5 using the same link and it
worked fine.

Can someone help?


Well, you know, 2.1 is now history, since the release of 2.2.
2.2 is supposedly (mostly) the maintenance release for 2.1.
They hope to have the automatic updater module for 2.0 (& 2.1 ?)
to 2.2 ready in about 2 weeks, And then 2.3 is due to be ready
about a month after that. They are already concentrating on
the development of 2.5
So really what do you want, hope for?
I'm sure? it will all be fixed in the next release.  :)  :/

Dth?
--
Rostyk
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Skipping version 2.1

[Robert Kaiser]

Daniel schrieb:

Callek, pull your finger out!! ;-)


I think getting "Major Updates" out and beta builds for 2.3 going is 
still higher on his priority list, and he's only working on that in his 
free time, but we all hope he gets to it (of course, first the machines 
need to be racked up and basically set up by Mozilla IT). :)


Robert Kaiser

--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the 
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: update to 2.2 ... doesn't...

[WLS]

sean nathan bean wrote:

my update has been spinning for a couple of hours now...

sean



Originally installed manually or from a software management update?

My SM 2.1 was installed from the mozilla repository, but openSUSE forgot 
to take out the Check for Updates menu item like they normally do and of 
course it wouldn't update, using that menu item.


I installed SM 2.2 from the tarball.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Paul]

WLS wrote:

Paul wrote:

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by
the end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on
2.2, and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0
debuted last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this
while I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now
they're all broken.


Why upgrade? 1119 works quite well for me.


One word. Can you tell me what that word might be?


Paranoia?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

update to 2.2 ... doesn't...

[sean nathan bean]

my update has been spinning for a couple of hours now...

sean

--
Hey, this isn't my tagline! Who put this here?
 courtesy of TagZilla 0.066.2
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Unable to authenticate to SMTP ?? #@?

[cmcadams]

Jay O'Brien wrote:

I Agree, it has been doing this exact thing to me on three
different computers with three different email addresses
on att.net for several months. No one seems concerned.
Sometimes I have to send as many as seven times before it
finally is accepted. ATT/Yahoo is no help, either.

Jay

 Original Message 
Subject: Unable to authenticate to SMTP ?? #@?
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:46:27 -0400
From: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
To: support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org

I'm using SM 2.0.14 .
For this account according to the account settings:
   - I am connecting to pop.att.yahoo.net:995  .
   - The outgoing server (SMTP) is
urj...@bellsouth.net - smtp.att.y...
(I'm guessing that's smtp.att.yahoo.net . But the
box for entering the entry doesn't scroll. So I can
not verify the name)
   - Connection security is  SSL/TLS
   and the check box for 'Use secure authentication' is unchecked

[By the way, the account editing window can not be re-sized.
For server settings, it is too narrow so that the boxes
for 'advanced' and 'browse' are truncated on the right.
Has the window been made re-sizable now for 2.1+ ]

Recently my system has begun to issue the following error
when I try to send out emails on this account:
"Sending of message failed. An error occurred sending mail:
Unable to authenticate to SMTP server smtp.att.yahoo.com.
It does not support authentication (SMTP-AUTH) but you have
chosen to use authentication. Uncheck 'use name and password'
for that server or contact your server provider"

NOTE: This is not a hard error. If I wait a minute or two
and retry sending the message, it is sent out successfully.

So who's to blame? AND how do I get rid of this annoyance?



Occurs irregularly here as well. Settings correct, per their own instructions. 
Persistence in clicking Send has worked for me, thus far. Wouldn't dream of 
contacting ATT/Yahoo. :P

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

FireFTP bug

[WLS]

I'm experiencing this bug with FireFTP 1.99.5 in SeaMonkey 2.2 on 
openSUSE 11.3.


https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24131

The original filer of the bug is using FireFTP 1.99.4, openSUSE 11.4 and 
Firefox 5.


Does anyone see this in other Linux distros such as Ubuntu, Fedora, and 
whatever you may be using? What about Windows?


--

SeaMonkey
How can I help you, when you won't even help yourself?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[WLS]

Paul wrote:

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by
the end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on
2.2, and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0
debuted last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this
while I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now
they're all broken.


Why upgrade? 1119 works quite well for me.


One word. Can you tell me what that word might be?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Paul]

Rex wrote:
Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while 
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're 
all broken.


Why upgrade?  1119 works quite well for me.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[WLS]

Rex wrote:

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2,
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.

I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?

I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're
all broken.


So you haven't read the SeaMonkey 2.2 Release post in this newsgroup?

There are 2 major upgrades for SM 2.1, but is also the major upgrade for 
SM 2.0.14.


I'll repost the release notes for you.

http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey2.2/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Not the inspired by Chrome, Firefox style versioning system please!

[Rex]

Firefox went from version 4 to version 5 in less than 2 months - in 
imitation of Google Chrome, who seem to be incrementing the version 
every other week.
Please tell me Seamonkey isn't going to do the same thing so that by the 
end of the year we're up to version 3.5 or 4, and 5 by next year.
Last week I updated to 2.1, and now barely a month later you're on 2.2, 
and looks like 2.3 is a few weeks away..compared to when 2.0 debuted 
last September and went on up to 2.0.14 for the minor fixes.


I can see 2.1 has major new features and changes relative to 2.0x, but 
what about between 2.1 and 2.2? Shouldn't this be a minor update to 2.1?


I have the same gripe as others here - broken extensions. All this while 
I was happily using QuoteColors, Tagzilla, and several more, now they're 
all broken.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Import embargoes against TB5 and FF5?

[Graham P Davis]

I thought I'd have another try with Seamonkey 2.1 but ran into a couple 
of problems.

(1) I thought I saw SM say it was importing FF5 bookmarks but must have 
been mistaken. I know other browsers can't manage that trick but would 
have thought another Mozilla product would have been up to the task. 
Silly me! Don't worry, I know the way to get round this one - export 
bookmarks from FF as HTML and then import them into SM - but it's a pity 
the left hand doesn't know what the right one is up to.

(2) Most mail folders and account info was imported more-or-less OK but 
"Blogs & News Feeds" is a disaster area - nothing imported there. 
 (a) I tried exporting from TB5 as OPML file - or files, it only seems to 
try one file at a time - but this was a total failure. I don't know where 
the fault lies but suspect TB5 as the file was empty apart from the date. 
Having said that, the "Manage subscriptions" import option may be as 
useless as the "add" button (see (c)). 
 (b) I then tried copying the TB5 files (mail/feeds folder and feeds.msf) 
into the SM folder but that made no difference. 
 (c) Next, I tried adding the feeds from scratch using "Manage 
subscriptions" but it couldn't manage to do anything. Clicked on "add" 
and then pasted in the HTML for the feed, then "OK", but nothing 
happened. Did the identical thing with TB5 using the same link and it 
worked fine.

Can someone help?

-- 
Graham Davis, UK
User of Mozillarish stuff since Netscape 1.2N.
Running KDE 4.6.5 on openSUSE 11.4. 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Unable to authenticate to SMTP ?? #@?

[Christian Eyrich]

On 2011-07-05 22:46, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote:

> Recently my system has begun to issue the following error
> when I try to send out emails on this account:
> "Sending of message failed. An error occurred sending mail:
> Unable to authenticate to SMTP server smtp.att.yahoo.com.
> It does not support authentication (SMTP-AUTH) but you have
> chosen to use authentication. Uncheck 'use name and password'
> for that server or contact your server provider"

Since it was me who introduced this message and the SMTP evaluation
mechanism I’m interested in this problem.

The message is issued in two cases:
1. The server doesn’t greet with an extended HELO. Without this it isn’t
able to advertise support of authentication mechanisms at all.
2. The server doesn’t list authentication mechanisms in the extended
HELO greeting.

So if you instructed SeaMonkey to use authentication for SMTP it will
show the message if one of the two conditions is true.

The interesting thing now is, why doesn’t it work sometimes and
sometimes it does (only minutes later).

I can think of two situations:
1. Your providers mail server pool contains some machines with auth
support and some without and it’s by chance to which you get a connection.
2. The server or the connection is that faulty so that the EHLO greeting
gets scrambled.

There’s a way to find out though it’s not as easy as an always fail
scenario. You can create a log file of your mail sending by following
the instructions on https://wiki.mozilla.org/MailNews:Logging#Windows

In your case use a batch file containing
set NSPR_LOG_MODULES=smtp:5
set NSPR_LOG_FILE=%APPDATA%\smtp.log
"C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\seamonkey.exe"

to start SeaMonkey (check the path above path for correctness on your
machine) and look at the result when encountering the message (or send
it to someone who’s able to interpret it).
Note: No message content and no passwords are logged in the logfile.

Bye,
Christian
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Skipping version 2.1

[Daniel]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Daniel schrieb:

Hey, KaiRo, when you talk here about machines for further SM 2.0.x
updates, and elsewhere about machines for 64bit Linux builds, are these
machines under the full time control of the SeaMonkey Council, or are
they Mozilla owned machines that the SM council gets occasional access
to??


Mozilla-owned machines that are dedicated to working for the SeaMonkey
project. Currently those are a few Mac minis and a few VMs for Windows
and Linux, but Mozilla has ordered a few more Mac minis and physical
machines for Windows and Linux for us, right now it's a question of
getting them mounted in racks and set up, as far as I understand. This
should get done in the next weeks. We will see if that's enough to
increase Linux64 support. Callek will work on that.

Robert Kaiser




Thanks for this very quick reply, KaiRo.

Callek, pull your finger out!! ;-)
--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Why do all my addons have to break when ever I update?

[Bill Spikowski]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 07/07/2011 18:12, goldtech told the world:


Please explain why it's necessary for addons to break when ever a new
version of FF or SM comes out. Can not it be coded so that all the
tools I use will continue to work? I don't get it - would someone
explain?


I'm not in the developers team, but I'll try to give a layman's
explanation of what happens.

Add-ons (extensions) "hook" into and modify the user interface of the
program -- sometimes inserting a new module in the structure, sometimes
replacing the standard module with their own customized module,
whatever. But add-ons are written under a number of assumptions, those
being that the calls (the way an add-on "talks" to the main program)
will have such-and-such names and behave in such-and-such way.

Here's the thing: the main program evolves too. The developers try not
to change the existing interface whenever it's possible, exactly in
order to avoid breaking add-ons. But sometimes the change is big, and
some assumptions the add-on relied on are no longer valid.

For instance, we had two rather big changes recently, one in Firefox,
one in Seamonkey. Firefox completely overhauled the user interface. This
means that add-ons that made certain assumptions about how the user
interface would look and behave got hosed.

In Seamonkey's case, there the new Places engine for bookmarks. Again,
add-ons that expected the behavior of the old HTML bookmarks system broke.

And those are just two particularly large changes. There are smaller
changes spread all over the programs that, for one reason or another,
also broke compatibility with previous versions.

Sometimes it might be that the old behavior was found to be
intrinsically unsafe, or intrinsically unstable, and the dev team
decided to remove it. (When they do so, they usually promote an
alternate approach to get the same results -- but that entails changing
the add-on).

Sometimes it could be that a particular piece of code was written by
someone no longer active in the project, and the author did a poor job
of documenting it. So nobody can really understand how it works now, and
it is holding back the development of other parts of of the project.
Eventually a decision is reached to replace it with new code -- but the
new code will not behave quite the same way as the old code.

And sometimes it's not the main project's developers' fault. Some
extensions use the API calls in weird ways they weren't intended to be
used. This might be a really good add-on developer pushing the
boundaries of what's possible to do in an add-on... or a really lame
add-on developer who can't understand the recommended way to do stuff.
Either way, the main project developers cannot guarantee those
undocumented tricks to keep working.


A malfunctioning add-on can make a program unusable. That's why there is
a compatibility check built in Firefox, Seamonkey&  co., because it's
assumed that it's better for the user to have
Firefox/Seamonkey/Thunderbird working without an add-on than to run the
risk of it crashing horribly due to a faulty add-on.

Note that the compatibility check does not do any sort of deep analysis
of the add-on; it just checks if the add-on itself claims compatibility
with the current program version.

Some add-on authors (particularly the ones doing complex add-ons, such
as NoScript or Enigmail, which could break stuff horribly) are
understandably very conservative about such claims: they won't claim
compatibility with a program version until they have tested it. So,
depending on whether the add-on author was proactive about testing their
work against the development (beta) versions of the main program, it
might take some time until they release a version claiming compatibility.

Other authors are less concerned and claim compatibility with versions
which haven't even begun development yet. (In the case of add-ons that
do things in a very simple, straightforward way, the assumption that
those features will remain stable for a long time may even be
reasonable. But it seems a bit too daring to me.)

And... many times the add-on is not even broken; it works PERFECTLY WELL
with the new Firefox/Seamonkey/Thunderbird version. It's just that
nobody has bothered to update the compatibility claims in the add-on yet
(That happens a lot with add-ons that are no longer being actively
developed). It's not the dev team's fault that the add-on itself claims
to be incompatible.

In those cases, some community members sometimes will release slightly
modified "unofficial" versions of the add-ons, with the only change
being the compatibility claims (Sometimes it takes real programming
fixes, too; but unofficial versions with fixes are not unheard of).
Philip Chee maintains a repository of many such modified add-ons for
Seamonkey (and, in a few cases, for Firefox and Thunderbird too) at

http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/



Great explanation, thanks so much!

___

Re: Skipping version 2.1

[Robert Kaiser]

Daniel schrieb:

Hey, KaiRo, when you talk here about machines for further SM 2.0.x
updates, and elsewhere about machines for 64bit Linux builds, are these
machines under the full time control of the SeaMonkey Council, or are
they Mozilla owned machines that the SM council gets occasional access to??


Mozilla-owned machines that are dedicated to working for the SeaMonkey 
project. Currently those are a few Mac minis and a few VMs for Windows 
and Linux, but Mozilla has ordered a few more Mac minis and physical 
machines for Windows and Linux for us, right now it's a question of 
getting them mounted in racks and set up, as far as I understand. This 
should get done in the next weeks. We will see if that's enough to 
increase Linux64 support. Callek will work on that.


Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the 
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Skipping version 2.1

[Daniel]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Ant schrieb:

And no more 2.0.x updates?


No, the platform for those releases isn't maintained any more and so the
SeaMonkey team can't maintain the application there any more either.

Robert Kaiser




Hey, KaiRo, when you talk here about machines for further SM 2.0.x 
updates, and elsewhere about machines for 64bit Linux builds, are these 
machines under the full time control of the SeaMonkey Council, or are 
they Mozilla owned machines that the SM council gets occasional access to??


--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Why do all my addons have to break when ever I update?

[Robert Kaiser]

JeffM schrieb:

...then there is Google included an actual API for extensions
in their Chrome Browser.


There's an "Add-On SDK" for Mozilla software that does the same. Still, 
add-ons built with that only or the Google Chrome API can do so much 
less than full-blown add-ons for Mozilla products that I don't expect 
all add-ons to switch to using it.



These are the prices you pay for being a pioneer:


Not just for being a pioneer, but also for allowing many more degrees of 
freedom that others.


Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the 
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey