Re: SM update status...

2016-12-10 Thread Mason83 
On 10/12/2016 13:02, Richmond wrote:

> Mason83  writes:
> 
>> I'm not surprised you can't upgrade within SM, because you untarred
>> as root, but run as regular user. So SM doesn't have permission to
>> trash its installation folder.
> 
> Is it a security hazard if Seamonkey has access to change itself?

In Linux, binaries are typically owned by root, so regular users
can run them, but not change them (since they may be shared among
several users).

On a desktop system with a single user, it's not so important,
but I think it is good security practice.

Regards.

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-10 Thread Richmond 
Mason83  writes:

> I'm not surprised you can't upgrade within SM, because you untarred
> as root, but run as regular user. So SM doesn't have permission to
> trash its installation folder.
>

Is it a security hazard if Seamonkey has access to change itself?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-09 Thread Mason83 
On 09/12/2016 15:31, David H. Durgee wrote:
> Mason83 wrote:
>
>> One thing to watch out for is when Ubuntuzilla eventually
>> puts out a new release. This is likely to overwrite your
>> "custom" SM package. I don't have a good solution for that.
> 
> Interesting you should mention that.  When I switched focus to SeaMonkey 
> this morning I got a notice to the effect that there was an update 
> available but I could not apply it.  Checking at Adrian's site I see a 
> new build available.  Guess I need to do the whole thing again to update.

I think Adrian rebuilds every week or two. It's not necessarily
urgent to upgrade immediately. (The warning was written with an
official release channel in mind.)

I'm not surprised you can't upgrade within SM, because you untarred
as root, but run as regular user. So SM doesn't have permission to
trash its installation folder.

Regards.

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-09 Thread David H. Durgee 

Mason83 wrote:

On 09/12/2016 02:17, David H. Durgee wrote:

Mason83 wrote:

On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote:

Mason83 wrote:

On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:


I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the
ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system
and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there
and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see
no .deb available.

I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it
stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in
for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build
is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I
am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed
in this manner.


A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
(uncompress as root, but run as you)



I don't see a .tgz file in Adrian's server, but I do see a .tar.bz2 file
which I downloaded to inspect from the *release-linux64 directory.

Looking at the contents of the .tar.bz2 and comparing it with
/opt/seamonkey does show a good correspondence of files with a few
missing or added files.  Checking the Synaptic package manager shows
that in addition to the /opt/seamonkey directory there are a few other
files:

/usr/bin/seamonkey
/usr/share/applications/seamonkey-mozilla-build.desktop
/usr/share/pixmaps/seamonkey-mozilla-build.png

The first of these is a link to the executable, so I assume I would
likely need to recreate this if I were to install the unofficial version
over 2.40 here.  The other two files define the desktop interface and I
would expect them to continue without problems.

Thank you for your suggestion.  I am going to consider this option.


What I did was
1) rename /opt/seamonkey to /opt/seamonkey-2.40
(to keep a backup in case of trouble)
2) uncompress Adrian's tarball to /opt => creates /opt/seamonkey

That way, all the desktop gizmos you mention point
to the new version, and still work.


I followed your example and am now running 2.47 here.  This appears to
be working properly, but I have only been using it for a few hours at
this point.  Thank you for your guidance in this area.


Always glad to assist a fellow Linux user ;-)

One thing to watch out for is when Ubuntuzilla eventually
puts out a new release. This is likely to overwrite your
"custom" SM package. I don't have a good solution for that.



Interesting you should mention that.  When I switched focus to SeaMonkey 
this morning I got a notice to the effect that there was an update 
available but I could not apply it.  Checking at Adrian's site I see a 
new build available.  Guess I need to do the whole thing again to update.


Dave

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-08 Thread Mason83 
On 09/12/2016 02:17, David H. Durgee wrote:
> Mason83 wrote:
>> On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote:
>>> Mason83 wrote:
 On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:

> I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the
> ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system
> and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there
> and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see
> no .deb available.
>
> I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it
> stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in
> for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build
> is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I
> am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed
> in this manner.

 A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
 Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
 (uncompress as root, but run as you)

>>>
>>> I don't see a .tgz file in Adrian's server, but I do see a .tar.bz2 file
>>> which I downloaded to inspect from the *release-linux64 directory.
>>>
>>> Looking at the contents of the .tar.bz2 and comparing it with
>>> /opt/seamonkey does show a good correspondence of files with a few
>>> missing or added files.  Checking the Synaptic package manager shows
>>> that in addition to the /opt/seamonkey directory there are a few other
>>> files:
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/seamonkey
>>> /usr/share/applications/seamonkey-mozilla-build.desktop
>>> /usr/share/pixmaps/seamonkey-mozilla-build.png
>>>
>>> The first of these is a link to the executable, so I assume I would
>>> likely need to recreate this if I were to install the unofficial version
>>> over 2.40 here.  The other two files define the desktop interface and I
>>> would expect them to continue without problems.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your suggestion.  I am going to consider this option.
>>
>> What I did was
>> 1) rename /opt/seamonkey to /opt/seamonkey-2.40
>> (to keep a backup in case of trouble)
>> 2) uncompress Adrian's tarball to /opt => creates /opt/seamonkey
>>
>> That way, all the desktop gizmos you mention point
>> to the new version, and still work.
> 
> I followed your example and am now running 2.47 here.  This appears to 
> be working properly, but I have only been using it for a few hours at 
> this point.  Thank you for your guidance in this area.

Always glad to assist a fellow Linux user ;-)

One thing to watch out for is when Ubuntuzilla eventually
puts out a new release. This is likely to overwrite your
"custom" SM package. I don't have a good solution for that.

Regards.

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-08 Thread David H. Durgee 

Mason83 wrote:

On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote:

Mason83 wrote:

On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:


I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the
ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system
and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there
and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see
no .deb available.

I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it
stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in
for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build
is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I
am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed
in this manner.


A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
(uncompress as root, but run as you)



I don't see a .tgz file in Adrian's server, but I do see a .tar.bz2 file
which I downloaded to inspect from the *release-linux64 directory.

Looking at the contents of the .tar.bz2 and comparing it with
/opt/seamonkey does show a good correspondence of files with a few
missing or added files.  Checking the Synaptic package manager shows
that in addition to the /opt/seamonkey directory there are a few other
files:

/usr/bin/seamonkey
/usr/share/applications/seamonkey-mozilla-build.desktop
/usr/share/pixmaps/seamonkey-mozilla-build.png

The first of these is a link to the executable, so I assume I would
likely need to recreate this if I were to install the unofficial version
over 2.40 here.  The other two files define the desktop interface and I
would expect them to continue without problems.

Thank you for your suggestion.  I am going to consider this option.


What I did was
1) rename /opt/seamonkey to /opt/seamonkey-2.40
(to keep a backup in case of trouble)
2) uncompress Adrian's tarball to /opt => creates /opt/seamonkey

That way, all the desktop gizmos you mention point
to the new version, and still work.


I followed your example and am now running 2.47 here.  This appears to 
be working properly, but I have only been using it for a few hours at 
this point.  Thank you for your guidance in this area.


Dave

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-07 Thread Mason83 
On 07/12/2016 23:12, David H. Durgee wrote:
> Mason83 wrote:
>> On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:
>>
>>> I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the
>>> ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system
>>> and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there
>>> and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see
>>> no .deb available.
>>>
>>> I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it
>>> stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in
>>> for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build
>>> is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I
>>> am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed
>>> in this manner.
>>
>> A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
>> Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
>> (uncompress as root, but run as you)
>>
> 
> I don't see a .tgz file in Adrian's server, but I do see a .tar.bz2 file 
> which I downloaded to inspect from the *release-linux64 directory.
> 
> Looking at the contents of the .tar.bz2 and comparing it with 
> /opt/seamonkey does show a good correspondence of files with a few 
> missing or added files.  Checking the Synaptic package manager shows 
> that in addition to the /opt/seamonkey directory there are a few other 
> files:
> 
> /usr/bin/seamonkey
> /usr/share/applications/seamonkey-mozilla-build.desktop
> /usr/share/pixmaps/seamonkey-mozilla-build.png
> 
> The first of these is a link to the executable, so I assume I would 
> likely need to recreate this if I were to install the unofficial version 
> over 2.40 here.  The other two files define the desktop interface and I 
> would expect them to continue without problems.
> 
> Thank you for your suggestion.  I am going to consider this option.

What I did was
1) rename /opt/seamonkey to /opt/seamonkey-2.40
(to keep a backup in case of trouble)
2) uncompress Adrian's tarball to /opt => creates /opt/seamonkey

That way, all the desktop gizmos you mention point
to the new version, and still work.

Regards.

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-07 Thread David H. Durgee 

Mason83 wrote:

On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:


I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the
ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system
and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there
and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see
no .deb available.

I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it
stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in
for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build
is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I
am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed
in this manner.


A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
(uncompress as root, but run as you)



I don't see a .tgz file in Adrian's server, but I do see a .tar.bz2 file 
which I downloaded to inspect from the *release-linux64 directory.


Looking at the contents of the .tar.bz2 and comparing it with 
/opt/seamonkey does show a good correspondence of files with a few 
missing or added files.  Checking the Synaptic package manager shows 
that in addition to the /opt/seamonkey directory there are a few other 
files:


/usr/bin/seamonkey
/usr/share/applications/seamonkey-mozilla-build.desktop
/usr/share/pixmaps/seamonkey-mozilla-build.png

The first of these is a link to the executable, so I assume I would 
likely need to recreate this if I were to install the unofficial version 
over 2.40 here.  The other two files define the desktop interface and I 
would expect them to continue without problems.


Thank you for your suggestion.  I am going to consider this option.

Dave


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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-07 Thread Mason83 
On 06/12/2016 15:01, David H. Durgee wrote:

> I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the 
> ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system 
> and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there 
> and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see 
> no .deb available.
> 
> I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it 
> stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in 
> for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build 
> is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I 
> am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed 
> in this manner.

A compressed archive (tgz) is more general than a deb package.
Just uncompress the archive to e.g. /opt and run from there.
(uncompress as root, but run as you)

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-06 Thread David H. Durgee 

Adrian Kalla wrote:

W dniu 12/02/2016 o 09:43 PM, Mr. Ed pisze:

If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download



I'd recommend to never ever put links to that site anywhere. For many
reasons:
1st, because they just take my builds and make it appear like this were
releases (the small text "Unofficial Nightly" is not enough for most
people to understand, what that build really is)
2nd, because that site looks like it could start serving malware any
moment (this site looks all but serious for me) - and there is
absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this
3rd, when the people get the link to
https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/
instead, they also get the opportunity to download the localized
versions that are not provided by m64.info

Best,
Adrian


I am currently running 2.40 x64 on linux mint x64 installed from the 
ubuntuzilla repository.  I have a local repository set up on my system 
and could install your unofficial build from a .deb by adding it there 
and using the update tools.  Looking at your directory noted above I see 
no .deb available.


I am not sufficiently versed in this area to work with your build as it 
stands in this directory.  Can you prepare a .deb as well to stand in 
for that which will be available via ubuntuzilla once an official build 
is available?  If not, is there someone else who can do so?  I am sure I 
am not the only one who would welcome a version that could be installed 
in this manner.


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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-03 Thread Arnie Goetchius 
Mr. Ed wrote:
> On 12/03/16 10:24 AM, Gerd Schweizer wrote:
>> Paul B. Gallagher schrieb:
>>> Mr. Ed wrote:
>>>
 This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
 installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).
>>>
>>> Really!?
>>>
>>> My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
>>> available.
>>>
>> Mine too
>>
> 
> As I stated, I was running 2.47 before the update.  The update installed an
> updated version of the 2.47 that I was running.  And yes, at the present time
> there is no update for 2.40
> 
Ditto
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-03 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/03/16 10:24 AM, Gerd Schweizer wrote:
> Paul B. Gallagher schrieb:
>> Mr. Ed wrote:
>>
>>> This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
>>> installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).
>>
>> Really!?
>>
>> My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
>> available.
>>
> Mine too
> 

As I stated, I was running 2.47 before the update.  The update installed an
updated version of the 2.47 that I was running.  And yes, at the present time
there is no update for 2.40

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-03 Thread Gerd Schweizer 

Paul B. Gallagher schrieb:

Mr. Ed wrote:


This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).


Really!?

My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
available.


Mine too

--
Liebe Grüße, Gerd
Satelliten FAQ
http://www.satgerd.de
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread NoOp 
On 12/02/2016 02:21 PM, Adrian Kalla wrote:
> W dniu 12/02/2016 o 09:43 PM, Mr. Ed pisze:
>> If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
>> http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download
> 
> 
> I'd recommend to never ever put links to that site anywhere. For many
> reasons:

+1

> 1st, because they just take my builds and make it appear like this were
> releases (the small text "Unofficial Nightly" is not enough for most
> people to understand, what that build really is)
> 2nd, because that site looks like it could start serving malware any
> moment (this site looks all but serious for me) - and there is
> absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this
> 3rd, when the people get the link to
> https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/
> instead, they also get the opportunity to download the localized
> versions that are not provided by m64.info
> 
> Best,
> Adrian
> 

And as always, thanks for ALL you do and kindly sharing your builds. My
vote is Adrian for MVD of 2015 and 2016 :-)


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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/02/16 5:21 PM, Adrian Kalla wrote:
> W dniu 12/02/2016 o 09:43 PM, Mr. Ed pisze:
>> If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
>> http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download
> 
> 
> I'd recommend to never ever put links to that site anywhere. For many
> reasons:
> 1st, because they just take my builds and make it appear like this were
> releases (the small text "Unofficial Nightly" is not enough for most
> people to understand, what that build really is)
> 2nd, because that site looks like it could start serving malware any
> moment (this site looks all but serious for me) - and there is
> absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this
> 3rd, when the people get the link to
> https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/
> instead, they also get the opportunity to download the localized
> versions that are not provided by m64.info
> 
> Best,
> Adrian
> 

Duly noted and will refrain from posting that site.
Thanks for the info and keep up the good work.

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Adrian Kalla 
W dniu 12/02/2016 o 09:43 PM, Mr. Ed pisze:
> If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
> http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download


I'd recommend to never ever put links to that site anywhere. For many
reasons:
1st, because they just take my builds and make it appear like this were
releases (the small text "Unofficial Nightly" is not enough for most
people to understand, what that build really is)
2nd, because that site looks like it could start serving malware any
moment (this site looks all but serious for me) - and there is
absolutely nothing I can do to prevent this
3rd, when the people get the link to
https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/
instead, they also get the opportunity to download the localized
versions that are not provided by m64.info

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Paul B. Gallagher 

Mr. Ed wrote:

On 12/02/16 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Mr. Ed wrote:


This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).


Really!?

My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are available.



Running 2.47 (64 bit with Win10), it updated automaticaly to the updated 2.47.
Yes, the last OFFICIAL version of SM is 2.40.  And, as yet, there is no OFFICIAL
update.

If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download


No hurry; I'll wait for the official version.

Email is mission-critical in my business, so I'm more risk-averse than 
some other users. I am aware of the js issue, and hope we have a fix soon.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread njoracle 
Mr. Ed wrote:
> On 12/01/16 9:31 PM, Mr. Ed wrote:
>> On 12/01/16 8:44 PM, sean wrote:
>>> Ant wrote:
 On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:
>> https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(
>
> 2.40 needs patched. 

 Yep, badly!
>>>
>>> fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
>>> underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...
>>>
>>> I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears will 
>>> ever
>>> be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...
>>>
>>> sean
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  I have never used chatzilla, dom inspector, of composer.  Perhaps 
>> there
>> should be a vote by the user community as to whether or not these should 
>> remain
>> as part of the package.
>>
>> BTW - I'm running 2.47 (64 bit) and have not noticed any problems.
>>
> 
> This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and installed the
> latest 2.47 (12/01).
> 
Same here but I had already been running 2.46 on the one machine where
it upgraded to 2.47. Another machine with 2.40 did not update.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/02/16 1:15 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 12/2/16, Paul B. Gallagher  wrote:
>> WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2016 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
 Mr. Ed wrote:

> This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
> installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).

 Really!?

 My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
 available.

>>>
>>> Unless they haven't updated  it is
>>> the latest official version.
>>
>> Not sure which "it" you mean, but the project website offers 2.40, which
>> is what I have. So how did Mr. Ed get an automatic update?
> 
> Probably did a manual update at some point using something from
>   https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/
> 
> I used an earlier version from
> https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-release-windows32/
> did a check for updates this morning & one showed up with a build id
> of 20161201093907 :)
> 
> Lee
> 

Or here:
http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/02/16 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Mr. Ed wrote:
> 
>> This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
>> installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).
> 
> Really!?
> 
> My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are available.
> 

Running 2.47 (64 bit with Win10), it updated automaticaly to the updated 2.47.
Yes, the last OFFICIAL version of SM is 2.40.  And, as yet, there is no OFFICIAL
update.

If you want an unofficial 64 bit version of SM you can get it here:
http://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread EE 

Felix Miata wrote:

sean composed on 2016-12-01 18:44 (UTC-0700):


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...



I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears
will ever be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...


I use CZ 24/7, and DOMI frequently. Their entire absence would be big
trouble here if as extensions they could not be restored. IOW, bundling
is a convenience I could live without, but total absence not. Without
them I might as well be using FF with extensions to restore those SM
browsing functionalities I depend on and FF lacks.


You can get them from the Mozilla addons site.  I had updated them from 
there because SeaMonkey's versions were not up to date.  I have since 
removed Chatzilla because I do not need it.


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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Lee 
On 12/2/16, Paul B. Gallagher  wrote:
> WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 12/02/2016 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>> Mr. Ed wrote:
>>>
 This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
 installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).
>>>
>>> Really!?
>>>
>>> My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
>>> available.
>>>
>>
>> Unless they haven't updated  it is
>> the latest official version.
>
> Not sure which "it" you mean, but the project website offers 2.40, which
> is what I have. So how did Mr. Ed get an automatic update?

Probably did a manual update at some point using something from
  https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/

I used an earlier version from
https://l10n.mozilla-community.org/~akalla/unofficial/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-release-windows32/
did a check for updates this morning & one showed up with a build id
of 20161201093907 :)

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Alex Beauroy 

On 02/12/2016 17:26, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Mr. Ed wrote:


This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).


Really!?

My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
available.


Same for me here in the deep south west of France!!!
Best Regards
@lex

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Adrian Kalla 
W dniu 12/02/2016 o 06:05 PM, Paul B. Gallagher pisze:
> WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 12/02/2016 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>> Mr. Ed wrote:
>>>
 This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
 installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).
>>>
>>> Really!?
>>>
>>> My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are
>>> available.
>>>
>>
>> Unless they haven't updated  it is
>> the latest official version.
> 
> Not sure which "it" you mean, but the project website offers 2.40, which
> is what I have. So how did Mr. Ed get an automatic update?

He seems to use my unofficial builds.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread WaltS48 

On 12/02/2016 11:26 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Mr. Ed wrote:


This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).


Really!?

My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are 
available.




Unless they haven't updated  it is 
the latest official version.



--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Paul B. Gallagher 

Mr. Ed wrote:


This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and
installed the latest 2.47 (12/01).


Really!?

My SM 2.40, when asked manually to check for updates, says none are 
available.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Luis 

Alex Beauroy wrote:

On 02/12/2016 12:54, Mr. Ed wrote:

On 12/01/16 9:31 PM, Mr. Ed wrote:

On 12/01/16 8:44 PM, sean wrote:

Ant wrote:

On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 


Yep, badly!


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...

I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no 
tears will ever

be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...

sean



Agreed.  I have never used chatzilla, dom inspector, of composer.  
Perhaps there
should be a vote by the user community as to whether or not these 
should remain

as part of the package.

BTW - I'm running 2.47 (64 bit) and have not noticed any problems.



This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and installed 
the

latest 2.47 (12/01).


Lucky guy!!
@lex

I'm luckier than you Lex :) I downloaded today Aurora's nightly/latest 
SM 2.49.a2 Build id: 20161202025656 (mmddhhmmss)

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Alex Beauroy 

On 02/12/2016 12:54, Mr. Ed wrote:

On 12/01/16 9:31 PM, Mr. Ed wrote:

On 12/01/16 8:44 PM, sean wrote:

Ant wrote:

On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 


Yep, badly!


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...

I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears will ever
be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...

sean



Agreed.  I have never used chatzilla, dom inspector, of composer.  Perhaps there
should be a vote by the user community as to whether or not these should remain
as part of the package.

BTW - I'm running 2.47 (64 bit) and have not noticed any problems.



This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and installed the
latest 2.47 (12/01).


Lucky guy!!
@lex

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-02 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/01/16 9:31 PM, Mr. Ed wrote:
> On 12/01/16 8:44 PM, sean wrote:
>> Ant wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
 On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:
> https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(

 2.40 needs patched. 
>>>
>>> Yep, badly!
>>
>> fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
>> underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...
>>
>> I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears will 
>> ever
>> be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...
>>
>> sean
>>
> 
> Agreed.  I have never used chatzilla, dom inspector, of composer.  Perhaps 
> there
> should be a vote by the user community as to whether or not these should 
> remain
> as part of the package.
> 
> BTW - I'm running 2.47 (64 bit) and have not noticed any problems.
> 

This morning when opening SM it automatically downloaded and installed the
latest 2.47 (12/01).

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread WaltS48 

On 12/01/2016 09:21 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

sean composed on 2016-12-01 18:44 (UTC-0700):


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...



I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears
will ever be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...


I use CZ 24/7, and DOMI frequently. Their entire absence would be big 
trouble here if as extensions they could not be restored. IOW, 
bundling is a convenience I could live without, but total absence not. 
Without them I might as well be using FF with extensions to restore 
those SM browsing functionalities I depend on and FF lacks.



Did you know that Thunderbird has built-in chat? Maybe the SM devs could 
incorporate it into SM.


Chatzilla also is a Firefox extension. 



--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread Mr. Ed 
On 12/01/16 8:44 PM, sean wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>> On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:
 https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(
>>>
>>> 2.40 needs patched. 
>>
>> Yep, badly!
> 
> fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
> underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...
> 
> I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears will 
> ever
> be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...
> 
> sean
> 

Agreed.  I have never used chatzilla, dom inspector, of composer.  Perhaps there
should be a vote by the user community as to whether or not these should remain
as part of the package.

BTW - I'm running 2.47 (64 bit) and have not noticed any problems.

-- 
"This is America!  You can't make a horse
 testify against himself!"  Mister Ed

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread Felix Miata 

sean composed on 2016-12-01 18:44 (UTC-0700):


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...



I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears
will ever be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...


I use CZ 24/7, and DOMI frequently. Their entire absence would be big trouble 
here if as extensions they could not be restored. IOW, bundling is a convenience 
I could live without, but total absence not. Without them I might as well be 
using FF with extensions to restore those SM browsing functionalities I depend 
on and FF lacks.

--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread WaltS48 

On 12/01/2016 08:44 PM, sean wrote:

Ant wrote:

On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 


Yep, badly!


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked 
and underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...


Why did Mozilla waste time quickly fixing the security vulnerability and 
release an update to ESR 45.5.1 and 50.0.2, and the overworked, unpaid, 
volunteer Thunderbird developers quickly release an update to 45.5.1 to 
fix the security vulnerability?


Yeah, there will always be unknown security vulnerabilities, but to not 
quickly fix a known one leaves users vulnerable.


YMMV

--
Visit Pittsburgh 
Coexist 
National Popular Vote 
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

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

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread sean 

Ant wrote:

On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 


Yep, badly!


fwiw, 2.49a2 is working perfectly for me... I'm sure our overworked and 
underpaid volunteers know there's no need to waste time with 2.40...


I've almost never used chatzilla & never dom Inspector... so no tears 
will ever be shed by me when ewong says they are letting them go...


sean

--
The purpose of life is to be happy.
 ~ Dalai Lama
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread Ant 

On 12/1/2016 9:08 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 


Yep, badly!
--
"Ever watch ants just crawling around? They walk in that single straight 
line, a long, a long, long mile of ants. Sometimes they will walk over 
and pick up their dead friends and carry those around. I'm pretty sure 
it's because they can get in the carpool lane and pass up that line." 
--Ellen DeGeneres
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.

   /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  / /\ /\ \Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
 | |o   o| |
\ _ /If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
 ( )   Axe ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM update status...

2016-12-01 Thread WaltS48 

On 12/1/2016 11:59 AM, Ant wrote:

https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2016/12/01/face-the-music/ :(


2.40 needs patched. 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey