Please Help Testing: SeaMonkey 1.1.19 (1.x end-of-the-line) candidate builds

Robert Kaiser

unread,

Mar 1, 2010, 4:21:03 PM3/1/10

to

Hi all,

For one last time, I tagged a CVS tree for a SeaMonkey 1.x release, and
for one lat time, I made my to-be-retired old tinderbox machines spin
release candidate builds.

We will be releasing SeaMonkey 1.1.19, with the same base as Thunderbird
2.0.0.24, without a lot of actual release fanfare, actually, the big
announcement will be the end of the line for SeaMonkey 1.x, that there
is one last release will not be much more than a remark in that
announcement that is to be made as soon as we have some useful testing
and Thunderbird is ready to push their release as well.

A number of security and stability fixes went into this release, see
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?keywords_type=anywords&keywords=fixed-seamonkey1.1.19%2Cfixed1.8.1.24%2Cverified1.8.1.24&product=Core&product=MailNews+Core&product=SeaMonkey&product=Other+Applications>,
we need good testing of the candidate builds to avoid regressions if
possible. Not all security problems with 1.8.1.x browser code have been
fixed though, from what I'm told - still this is better to leave those
people stuck with 1.x than the previous 1.1.18 release.

Please help testing our SeaMonkey 1.1.19 candidate builds
<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/candidates-1.1.19/>
- preferably via performing the smoketests from the, please go to and do
a SeaMonkey 1.1 test run
<http://litmus.mozilla.org/run_tests.cgi?test_run_id=11> on
<http://litmus.mozilla.org/>.

Once we have verified that the builds work well, we can announce the
SeaMonkey 1.x end of life and release this last security-enhanced
version to our remaining 1.x users.

Thanks for your help,

Robert Kaiser

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 9:39:18 AM3/3/10

to

[As we have no litmus results yet, sending to support and QA groups as
well.]

NoOp

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 4:11:55 PM3/3/10

to

On 03/03/2010 06:39 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> [As we have no litmus results yet, sending to support and QA groups as
> well.]

Run w/linux (Ubuntu 9.10) and Win2KPro. No obvious issues found.

Robert Kaiser

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 4:55:04 PM3/3/10

to

Thanks a lot!

Robert Kaiser

Bill Davidsen

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 6:20:13 PM3/3/10

to

Robert Kaiser wrote:
> [As we have no litmus results yet, sending to support and QA groups as
> well.]
>

The Linux version is looking for a really old version of the libc++ library,
libstdc++.so.5, I can only go back a few years in Fedora versions, so it's older
than FC9 (two years). I might be able to find a "obsolete" lib package for it,
but since it's been EOL for over a year I hate to play with a system in the
upgrade queue, and many of the repositories don't carry historical packages.

Is this a choice to keep people who would like to stay with 1.1.xx from
upgrading on recent systems, or just an assumption that only people with other
old software would be most likely to want it?

I'll get the source and try to build it for a smoke test.

--
Bill Davidsen <davi...@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

Bill Davidsen

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 6:41:57 PM3/3/10

to

The builds use the libstdc++-5.0 library, which has been "old" for several
years. Other than having to find a machine with a historical OS in the storeroom
I can say it passed a reasonable set of smoke tests on Linux.

Fedora users can find obsolete libraries in the compat-* rpm series.

Oops, older than that, it was obsolete five years ago, from an old server I
have:-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 804288 Jul 22 2005 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.3

Anyway if you can find the old libs it works fine. Good job!

Mark Hansen

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 6:55:46 PM3/3/10

to

On 3/3/2010 3:20 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> [As we have no litmus results yet, sending to support and QA groups as
>> well.]
>>
> The Linux version is looking for a really old version of the libc++ library,
> libstdc++.so.5, I can only go back a few years in Fedora versions, so it's older
> than FC9 (two years). I might be able to find a "obsolete" lib package for it,
> but since it's been EOL for over a year I hate to play with a system in the
> upgrade queue, and many of the repositories don't carry historical packages.

Hmmm, my system (CentOS 5.4) includes both libstdc++ 5.x and 6.x

Robert Kaiser

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 8:06:53 PM3/3/10

to

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> The builds use the libstdc++-5.0 library, which has been "old" for
> several years. Other than having to find a machine with a historical OS
> in the storeroom I can say it passed a reasonable set of smoke tests on
> Linux.

Thanks for trying. People with newer systems should not need to use
those old builds anyhow, they can use 2.0.x as well, which is even
secure and maintained, contrary to 1.x builds.

Robert Kaiser

NoOp

unread,

Mar 3, 2010, 8:44:34 PM3/3/10

to

I've both on my systems as well:

$ apt-cache policy libstdc++5
libstdc++5:
Installed: 1:3.3.6-17ubuntu1
Candidate: 1:3.3.6-17ubuntu1
Version table:
*** 1:3.3.6-17ubuntu1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
$ apt-cache policy libstdc++6
libstdc++6:
Installed: 4.4.1-4ubuntu9
Candidate: 4.4.1-4ubuntu9
Version table:
*** 4.4.1-4ubuntu9 0
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic-updates/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4.4.1-4ubuntu8 0
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/main Packages

For Bill:
<http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&hl=en&source=hp&q=fedora+%2B"libstdc%2B%2B5"&btnG=Google+Search>
Perhaps that will help?

Bill Davidsen

unread,

Mar 10, 2010, 2:49:26 PM3/10/10

to

Fedora has them in an optional package called compat-{something} there is one
for the ancient gcc-2 and one for the elderly gcc-3, I guess. But it hasn't been
standard for some years. I haven't looked on Ubuntu, I should install in a VM
just so I can look at stuff like that.

I'll check CentOS, I thought it was in a compatibility section there as well,
not installed by default.