Updates: re: 2.49.5

[Edmund Wong]

Hi All,

This is a quick specific mention for version 2.49.5.

There are no updates to this version. There are updates to 2.49.4.
Just none to 2.49.5. Users hoping to update to this
version will need to update manually.

Why?

Because 2.49.5 was a difficult version (at least for me) to release
as I hadn't gotten any new release process set properly. I hadn't
even (still haven't, really) gotten the whole release automation
working, so IanN and FRG had to manually do that build.

So while I had uploaded the binaries, I had forgotten the updates.
While the Linux and mac updates can still be uploaded (they hadn't
been clobbered), the windows versions need to be regenerated.
That is my fault, and I do apologize. It is inconvenient,
especially when I'll have the update system set up properly;
but what's done is done.

Given that regenerating the whole shebang would be difficult(
the build environment requirements are not the same as that
for the latest versions), it wouldn't be a very efficient
use of a very limited resource group.

If and when the release automation is done and can be set
to use different build environments (a very complicated
task... imo), I don't quite see it being done.

So, that said, if you are planning to update to 2.49.5,
please do so manually.


Edmund

[Edmund Wong]

Edmund Wong wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a quick specific mention for version 2.49.5.
>
> There are no updates to this version. There are updates to 2.49.4.
> Just none to 2.49.5. Users hoping to update to this
> version will need to update manually.

Further to my post, I'm currently working on a minor patch
between 2.49.4 to 2.49.5.

Edmund

[Daniel]

Edmund Wong wrote on 08/12/20 10:48:

Can I ask .... "WHY??"

Shouldn't you be advising us all to upgrade to SM 2.53.5.1 (or whatever)
rather than fixing problems associated with a, .... what??, year or more
old version??

(Not that I, and I'm sure a lot of others here, don't appreciated all
the effort that you, Edmund, and the rest of the SM team put in!! ;-) )

(To be honest, when I saw your 36 line original post in this thread,
then saw your 13 line reply to yourself, I thought this would be you
apologising for the OP!! ;-P )
--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.5.1 Build identifier: 20201115194905

Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 2017101523562

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

Daniel wrote:
> Edmund Wong wrote on 08/12/20 10:48:
>> Edmund Wong wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> This is a quick specific mention for version 2.49.5.
>>>
>>> There are no updates to this version.  There are updates to 2.49.4.
>>> Just none to 2.49.5.  Users hoping to update to this
>>> version will need to update manually.
>>
>> Further to my post, I'm currently working on a minor patch
>> between 2.49.4 to 2.49.5.
>>
>> Edmund
>>
> Can I ask .... "WHY??"
>
> Shouldn't you be advising us all to upgrade to SM 2.53.5.1 (or whatever)
> rather than fixing problems associated with a, .... what??, year or more old
> version??
>
> (Not that I, and I'm sure a lot of others here, don't appreciated all the
> effort that you, Edmund, and the rest of the SM team put in!! ;-) )
>
> (To be honest, when I saw your 36 line original post in this thread, then saw
> your 13 line reply to yourself, I thought this would be you apologising for
> the OP!! ;-P )

My personal two cents:

Profile upgrade from 2.0 to 2.49.x or whatever will probably fail. I think
needs to go thru 2.1 at least. Anyone still on pre 2.49 probably has a reason
if I find it valid or not. Don't care don't want to hear it. We are fixing
outstanding issues as fast as time permits but not enough devs around. Issues
with add-ons need to be fixed buy the author or a third party. Binary plugins
and add-ons are gone and will not come back.

Would enable updates from 2.33.1 and up to 2.49.5. Tested these and should
cause no big problems.

I would not enable updates from 2.49.x to 2.53.1 and up. If a master password
is set this might result in data loss. Also because of the code cleanups and
mozilla deprecations older add-ons might not work resulting in further unhappy
users. If anyone wants to stay on 2.49.5 or prior running Windows 7 and up be
my guest but don't file any bugs or ask for official support.

Updates for 2.53.1 and up should be fully enabled. There are some issues in
later versions but overall they are stable.


FRG

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> If anyone wants to stay on 2.49.5 or prior running Windows 7 and up be my
> guest but don't file any bugs or ask for official support.

A bit misleading. Goes for other OS too but mentioned 7 because 2.53.1 removed
pre Windows 7 support.

FRG

[Ant]

Speaking of W7, how much longer with upcoming SM support it?
--
Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, z, tiredness, my old
body, (sick/ill)ness (e.g., COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP),
interruptions, issues, conflicts, obstacles, stresses, fires,
out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes &
female mosquitoes), etc. D: Note: A fixed width font (Courier,
Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \
| |o o| | Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
\ _ / Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
( )

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

Ant wrote:
> On 12/8/2020 9:42 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>
>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>> If anyone wants to stay on 2.49.5 or prior running Windows 7 and up be my
>>> guest but don't file any bugs or ask for official support.
>>
>> A bit misleading. Goes for other OS too but mentioned 7 because 2.53.1
>> removed pre Windows 7 support.
>
> Speaking of W7, how much longer with upcoming SM support it?

No plans to discontinue. We were basically the last supporting XP and this
will hopefully last longer.

FRG

[Daniel]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! For all your efforts. ;-P

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.5.1 Build identifier: 20201115194905

Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)

Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

[Ant]

Thanks FRG. I am doing the same. I hate W8 and W10. :(

[Daniel]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 09/12/20 07:26:

Frank-Rainer (or any other knowledge person), perhaps you could set me
straight.

I can understand a modern computer (64 bit or 128 bit even) not being
really happy running an 8 bit (yes, that's were I started), or a sixteen
bit or even a thirty-two bit OS/Program ....

But they should be able to run it wouldn't they?? O.K., not very
efficiently, but still .... And maybe as slow as wet weeks seem, but still.

Sure, the other bits and pieces (Java/JavaScript/etc) might be a
problem, but ....!!

Or am I totally off track!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.53.5.1 Build identifier: 20201115194905

Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)

Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

Ant wrote:
> On 12/8/2020 12:26 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>> Ant wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2020 9:42 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>> If anyone wants to stay on 2.49.5 or prior running Windows 7 and up be my
>>>>> guest but don't file any bugs or ask for official support.
>>>>
>>>> A bit misleading. Goes for other OS too but mentioned 7 because 2.53.1
>>>> removed pre Windows 7 support.
>>>
>>> Speaking of W7, how much longer with upcoming SM support it?
>>
>> No plans to discontinue. We were basically the last supporting XP and this
>> will hopefully last longer.
>
> Thanks FRG. I am doing the same. I hate W8 and W10. :(

Actually I am on 8.1 With open shell menu and the stupid apps and menu gone it
is usable and much smoother than 7 when it comes to virtual machines. But main
vm with SeaMonkey mail is on 7 :)

FRG

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

Daniel wrote:
> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 09/12/20 07:26:
>> Ant wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2020 9:42 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>> If anyone wants to stay on 2.49.5 or prior running Windows 7 and up be my
>>>>> guest but don't file any bugs or ask for official support.
>>>>
>>>> A bit misleading. Goes for other OS too but mentioned 7 because 2.53.1
>>>> removed pre Windows 7 support.
>>>
>>> Speaking of W7, how much longer with upcoming SM support it?
>>
>> No plans to discontinue. We were basically the last supporting XP and this
>> will hopefully last longer.
>>
>> FRG
>
> Frank-Rainer (or any other knowledge person), perhaps you could set me straight.
>
> I can understand a modern computer (64 bit or 128 bit even) not being really
> happy running an 8 bit (yes, that's were I started), or a sixteen bit or even
> a thirty-two bit OS/Program ....
>

No 128 bit exists. maybe a few gpus but overall none.

> But they should be able to run it wouldn't they?? O.K., not very efficiently,
> but still .... And maybe as slow as wet weeks seem, but still.
>
> Sure, the other bits and pieces (Java/JavaScript/etc) might be a problem, but
> ....!!

These days you usually use a vm for old stuff. You would need a supported OS
and nothing that old will boot on modern hardware.

> Or am I totally off track!!

Very theoretical without knowing the actual use case. For Intel the
instruction set was only expanded as far as I know so even an 8088 assembler
program might still run unless I am mistaken.

FRG

[Daniel]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote on 10/12/20 20:54:

Thanks, Frank-Rainer, that's about my understanding as well .... just
seems a bit of a waste!!