The next secruity update of Mozilla-based applications was moved to be released a bit early due to the "firefoxurl:" security problem in Firefox that has been discussed widely across the media. See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:2.0.0.5 for the current schedule.
In sync with that, SeaMonkey 1.1.3 is planned to be released as well, picking up a number of security and stability fixes despite SeaMonkey is not vulnerable to the problem cited above (due to not having picked up the vulnerable code at all, which was developed for better Vista support).
I've been informed that the whole schedule might slip due to maybe taking another important security fix, but as long as that is not decided, the current schedule stands.
Please help us testing those builds so we can get out a good SeaMonkey 1.1.3 release!
> The next secruity update of Mozilla-based applications was moved to be > released a bit early due to the "firefoxurl:" security problem in > Firefox that has been discussed widely across the media. > See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:2.0.0.5 for the current schedule.
> In sync with that, SeaMonkey 1.1.3 is planned to be released as well, > picking up a number of security and stability fixes despite SeaMonkey is > not vulnerable to the problem cited above (due to not having picked up > the vulnerable code at all, which was developed for better Vista support).
> I've been informed that the whole schedule might slip due to maybe > taking another important security fix, but as long as that is not > decided, the current schedule stands.
> Please help us testing those builds so we can get out a good SeaMonkey > 1.1.3 release!
'su -c ./seamonkey' would never have _installed_ SeaMonkey but instead _run_ it. You don't need to run SeaMonkey as root and you shouldn't. su might actually be OK, but never try this with sudo or your normal user profile will not run flawlessly as a normal user any more. Installing it as root is OK, running as root is discouraged, running through sudo harmful.
> 'su -c ./seamonkey' would never have _installed_ SeaMonkey but instead > _run_ it. You don't need to run SeaMonkey as root and you shouldn't. > su might actually be OK, but never try this with sudo or your normal > user profile will not run flawlessly as a normal user any more. > Installing it as root is OK, running as root is discouraged, running > through sudo harmful.
> Robert Kaiser
Yep, sorry I meant: su -c ./seamonkey-installer which I normally do anyway (I fully agree about not using the 'sudo' command). It's just that Manuel Reimer had mentioned in the PrefBar 3.4.1:
>> NoOp wrote: >> >> My SeaMonkey install is indeed installed using root permission ($ su -c >> >> ../seamonkey-installer) per the recommendations of the developer group >> >> sometime back. No global install. Would this make the difference? >> Manuel Reimer wrote: >> Yes. Don't do that. The bug with "root privileges required" has been >> fixed some some versions ago. You should just install with the user, >> which will use PrefBar and then install to your profile and not global.
>> All this problems will be gone immediately with SeaMonkey 2.x
In any event, that is what is required (su -c ./seamonkey-installer) as if not: "Choose another directory because you do not have permission to install to: /usr/local/seamonkey". And I'm happy to report that 1.1.3 is up and running just fine now on my backup machine & 2 test machines (Ubuntu 7.04 linux 2.6.20-16-386). I'll run those for awhile before installing on this one.
> The next secruity update of Mozilla-based applications was moved to be > released a bit early due to the "firefoxurl:" security problem in > Firefox that has been discussed widely across the media. > See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:2.0.0.5 for the current schedule.
Firefox has broken their own schedule and already published the release. They rushed this out so fast that not even the security team has publish _which_ vulnerabilities the release has solved.
We'll try to get out the SeaMonkey release as soon as A can clear it, as we're now in the position that a Firefox release is out that fixes some security flaws to which the latest SeaMonkey is still vulnerable.
> I've been informed that the whole schedule might slip due to maybe > taking another important security fix, but as long as that is not > decided, the current schedule stands.
Obviously, both hasn't happened. No additional fix, but our MoCo friend released even before scheduled date.
NoOp wrote: > Yep, sorry I meant: su -c ./seamonkey-installer which I normally do > anyway (I fully agree about not using the 'sudo' command).
That should be the right way to do it (if you want a global, not-user-writable install).
> It's just > that Manuel Reimer had mentioned in the PrefBar 3.4.1: > [...]
I think that's mostly about installing PrefBar, not about installing SeaMonkey per se.
> In any event, that is what is required (su -c ./seamonkey-installer) as > if not: > "Choose another directory because you do not have permission to install > to: /usr/local/seamonkey".
if you want to install to /usr/local that's clear, as only root has write permissions there.
>> In any event, that is what is required (su -c ./seamonkey-installer) as >> if not: >> "Choose another directory because you do not have permission to install >> to: /usr/local/seamonkey".
> if you want to install to /usr/local that's clear, as only root has > write permissions there.
> Robert Kaiser
The install script defaults to /usr/local/seamonkey. Is there another location where it should be installed?
NoOp wrote: > On 07/18/2007 04:04 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>> In any event, that is what is required (su -c ./seamonkey-installer) as >>> if not: >>> "Choose another directory because you do not have permission to install >>> to: /usr/local/seamonkey". >> if you want to install to /usr/local that's clear, as only root has >> write permissions there.
>> Robert Kaiser
> The install script defaults to /usr/local/seamonkey. Is there another > location where it should be installed?
That default is correct, but you _can_ install anywhere you like, even in your home directory.
> NoOp wrote: >> On 07/18/2007 04:04 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>>> In any event, that is what is required (su -c ./seamonkey-installer) as >>>> if not: >>>> "Choose another directory because you do not have permission to install >>>> to: /usr/local/seamonkey". >>> if you want to install to /usr/local that's clear, as only root has >>> write permissions there.
>>> Robert Kaiser
>> The install script defaults to /usr/local/seamonkey. Is there another >> location where it should be installed?
> That default is correct, but you _can_ install anywhere you like, even > in your home directory.
> Robert Kaiser
Yep... I should have realised that when it gave me the option to name a location... :-)
Anyway, zero problems to report so far on the test machines, so I've also installed on this machine. Install was flawless and so far no complaints. Given that FF released, are you still looking for smoketests or just 'use & report'?
NoOp wrote: > Anyway, zero problems to report so far on the test machines, so I've > also installed on this machine. Install was flawless and so far no > complaints. Given that FF released, are you still looking for > smoketests or just 'use & report'?
Both. :) And of course, file bugs for any problems you encounter.
We've had some smoketesting already for windows and I'll run the tests on linux. We still need Mac smoketesting. Of course, you're welcome to run the tests on windows and linux.
Real world use testing is helpful too and can catch bugs that only show up in non-default configurations or just make use of features not part of the basic tests we have.
> NoOp wrote: >> Anyway, zero problems to report so far on the test machines, so I've >> also installed on this machine. Install was flawless and so far no >> complaints. Given that FF released, are you still looking for >> smoketests or just 'use & report'?
> Both. :) And of course, file bugs for any problems you encounter.
> We've had some smoketesting already for windows and I'll run the tests > on linux. We still need Mac smoketesting. Of course, you're welcome to > run the tests on windows and linux.
> Real world use testing is helpful too and can catch bugs that only show > up in non-default configurations or just make use of features not part > of the basic tests we have.
Good enough... I'll run smoketests on Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty) linux tomorrow.
> On 07/18/2007 08:22 PM, Andrew Schultz wrote: >> NoOp wrote: >>> Anyway, zero problems to report so far on the test machines, so >>> I've also installed on this machine. Install was flawless and so >>> far no complaints. Given that FF released, are you still looking >>> for smoketests or just 'use & report'?
>> Both. :) And of course, file bugs for any problems you encounter.
>> We've had some smoketesting already for windows and I'll run the >> tests on linux. We still need Mac smoketesting. Of course, you're >> welcome to run the tests on windows and linux.
>> Real world use testing is helpful too and can catch bugs that only >> show up in non-default configurations or just make use of features >> not part of the basic tests we have.
> Good enough... I'll run smoketests on Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty) linux > tomorrow.
> Gary
Smoketests completed - no problems. Only one that I didn't run is IMAP.
Suggestion for the smoketests; provide a section so that the user can tell/show what OS version they are using. For instance, it only shows 'Linux', but there are hundreds of flavors of linux and I think it would be helpful to know what distros & kernel versions the test was performed with. Probably the same for Windows & MAC.
