Firefox Vista compatible and versioning heads up
Robert Strong
shim list so that it behaves appropriately (e.g. registry key create,
delete, write, etc., request elevation for createprocess, and so on) on
Vista and we have to give them a version range for Firefox 2.0 that will
need to be shimmed. Since we may have to push out security releases we
have chosen to have versions 2.0 thru 2.0.0.2 included in the shim list
and release 2.0.0.3 without the need for the shim. This way if we need
two security releases after 2.0 they will be in the shim list and if we
don't we can just bump the number to 2.0.0.3 or possibly include
manifests for the binaries which iirc will disable the shim.
-Robert
ehume
I would think that 2.0 is the initial build, 2.x would be for an
evolution in function, and 2.0.x would be for security releases. If
2.0.0.x is for security releases, what is the purpose of 2.0.0?
At this rate, we will be seeing Firefox 3.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.
Sailfish
--
Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.com/
Mozilla Themes: http://www.projectit.com/freestuff.html
Chris Ilias
> My basic question is this: why on earth are we going to see 2.0.0.*?
>
> I would think that 2.0 is the initial build, 2.x would be for an
> evolution in function, and 2.0.x would be for security releases. If
> 2.0.0.x is for security releases, what is the purpose of 2.0.0?
I assume the following thread still applies to today:
http://groups.google.com/group/netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey/browse_frm/thread/f1e58f2f18909598
--
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Adam Kowalczyk
> _ehume_ spoke thusly on 07/10/2006 1:08 PM:
>> My basic question is this: why on earth are we going to see 2.0.0.*?
>>
>> I would think that 2.0 is the initial build, 2.x would be for an
>> evolution in function, and 2.0.x would be for security releases. If
>> 2.0.0.x is for security releases, what is the purpose of 2.0.0?
>
> I assume the following thread still applies to today:
> http://groups.google.com/group/netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey/browse_frm/thread/f1e58f2f18909598
>
Well, following that logic you have to have to extra dots: one for the
standard security/stability updates and the other for UI-feature-only
updates. When 1.5 was the major release number we had to have 1.5.0.x.
With Firefox 2, 2.0.x would theoretically be enough since there's not
gonna be any 2.5 major release - we're going straight for 3.0.
Well, I brought that up on IRC one day and the answer I got from shaver
was something along the lines of "calling the next version 3.0 is the
plan but plans are not enough".
- Adam
Robert Strong
release and extension / theme authors have already been told to use
2.0.0.* for the maxVersion. If they had been told to use 2.0.* this
would then be released as 2.0.3. You will never see a 3.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Benjy Grogan
> Microsoft has added Firefox 1.5.0.x to their Vista app compatibility
> shim list so that it behaves appropriately (e.g. registry key create,
> delete, write, etc., request elevation for createprocess, and so on) on
> Vista and we have to give them a version range for Firefox 2.0 that will
> need to be shimmed. Since we may have to push out security releases we
> have chosen to have versions 2.0 thru 2.0.0.2 included in the shim list
> and release 2.0.0.3 without the need for the shim. This way if we need
> two security releases after 2.0 they will be in the shim list and if we
> don't we can just bump the number to 2.0.0.3 or possibly include
> manifests for the binaries which iirc will disable the shim.
Is this "shim list" to be included in an upcoming update to Vista RC1?
I'm having problems with FF2rc1 updating because of Vista
compatibility issues and these would be solved by the shim list being
updated in an update?
Is the shim list necessary if Firefox is adapted to the Vista
environment? Is it a temporary fix to work with Vista?
Thanks for any incoming answers,
Benjy
Robert Strong
> Is this "shim list" to be included in an upcoming update to Vista RC1?
the Vista release.
> I'm having problems with FF2rc1 updating because of Vista
> compatibility issues and these would be solved by the shim list being
> updated in an update?
Yes
> Is the shim list necessary if Firefox is adapted to the Vista
> environment?
No
> Is it a temporary fix to work with Vista?
Yes
Robert
Gervase Markham
> This way if we need
> two security releases after 2.0 they will be in the shim list and if we
> don't we can just bump the number to 2.0.0.3 or possibly include
> manifests for the binaries which iirc will disable the shim.
What happens if we need eight, as we have for Firefox 1.5.0.x?
What work is necessary to make it such that we don't need to be on the
shim list, and are we planning to check that work into the ultra-stable
1.5.0.x branch and ship it as a "security update"? If not, surely we
need to be on the shim list for 1.5.0.*, where * is any number?
Forgive me if I'm missing something...
Gerv
Mike Connor
On 9-Oct-06, at 10:29 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Robert Strong wrote:
>> This way if we need two security releases after 2.0 they will be
>> in the shim list and if we don't we can just bump the number to
>> 2.0.0.3 or possibly include manifests for the binaries which iirc
>> will disable the shim.
>
> What happens if we need eight, as we have for Firefox 1.5.0.x?
We're planning on being Vista-compatible ASAP (i.e. 2.0.0.1) but
we're allowing for a couple of firedrills this way.
> What work is necessary to make it such that we don't need to be on
> the shim list, and are we planning to check that work into the
> ultra-stable 1.5.0.x branch and ship it as a "security update"? If
> not, surely we need to be on the shim list for 1.5.0.*, where * is
> any number?
That's all well in hand, but we are not planning on backporting to
1.5.0.* All of those versions are on the shim list.
-- Mike
Simon Paquet
> Microsoft has added Firefox 1.5.0.x to their Vista app compatibility
> shim list so that it behaves appropriately (e.g. registry key create,
> delete, write, etc., request elevation for createprocess, and so on)
> on Vista and we have to give them a version range for Firefox 2.0
> that will need to be shimmed.
I know that this is the Firefox newsgroup, but what about other Mozilla
apps like Thunderbird, Sunbird or Seamonkey? Do they have the same
issues
or are these issues app-specific? If these issues are core issues, would
it be possible to also add the current releases of TB, SB and SM to this
shim list?
--
Simon Paquet
Sunbird/Lightning/Calendar website maintainer
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar
Robert Strong
Simon Paquet wrote:
> Robert Strong wrote on 07. Oct 2006:
>
>> Microsoft has added Firefox 1.5.0.x to their Vista app compatibility
>> shim list so that it behaves appropriately (e.g. registry key create,
>> delete, write, etc., request elevation for createprocess, and so on)
>> on Vista and we have to give them a version range for Firefox 2.0
>> that will need to be shimmed.
>
> I know that this is the Firefox newsgroup, but what about other Mozilla
> apps like Thunderbird, Sunbird or Seamonkey? Do they have the same issues
> it be possible to also add the current releases of TB, SB and SM to this
> shim list?
were misbehaving was done by Microsoft. I am sure Thunderbird, Sunbird
and Seamonkey misbehave in some ways on Vista but what these are I do
not know and the deadline was too soon after being told about the
deadline to perform the QA required to identify the areas where they
misbehaved. mscott was at the mtg. when this was discussed and may have
worked something out for Thunderbird while was not in the room but afaik
Thunderbird isn't shimmed.
Greg Campbell
> Since we may have to push out security releases we have chosen to
> have versions 2.0 thru 2.0.0.2 included in the shim list and release
> 2.0.0.3 without the need for the shim. This way if we need two
> security releases after 2.0 they will be in the shim list and if we
> don't we can just bump the number to 2.0.0.3 or possibly include
> manifests for the binaries which iirc will disable the shim.
Would it make more sense to allow as many 2.0.0.x security releases as
is possible and keep them all on the shim list? Then when we're ready to
go without the shim, bump up to 2.0.1.0?
That seems to follow better the
MajorVersion.MinorVersion.FunctionalityUpdate.SecurityUpdate
rubric as I understand it.
I guess the problem would be that it would break extensions that set a
maxVersion of 2.0.0.*.
Greg
Robert Strong
Jesper Kristensen
Robert Strong
Jesper Kristensen wrote:
> Why do we make a 2.0 and not a 2.0.0.0 ?
Benjy Grogan
> Why not... they are equivalent versions.
Have you come across any interesting information such as how many
system calls Vista's kernel has?
Benjy
>
> Jesper Kristensen wrote:
> > Why do we make a 2.0 and not a 2.0.0.0 ?
Robert Strong
> Have you come across any interesting information such as how many
> system calls Vista's kernel has?
Gervase Markham
>> What work is necessary to make it such that we don't need to be on the
>> shim list, and are we planning to check that work into the
>> ultra-stable 1.5.0.x branch and ship it as a "security update"? If
>> not, surely we need to be on the shim list for 1.5.0.*, where * is any
>> number?
Apologies - this question should have been about 2.0.0.x throughout. Can
I ask it again, please? :-)
How extensive are the Vista compatibility changes?
Gerv
Robert Strong
> Apologies - this question should have been about 2.0.0.x throughout.
> Can I ask it again, please? :-)
>
> How extensive are the Vista compatibility changes?
and others that are nice to haves. For starters:
* New default user app API's.
* UAC (User Account Control) which will elevate a process on launch.
This is used when setting the app as the OS default.
note: We had / have several other issues that were discovered with the
existing setting the app as default code some of which also required the
app to be shimmed.
* Requesting elevated privileges when launching updater.exe.
Additional areas where we believe changes should be made can be found in
the meta bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352420
Robert
Gervase Markham
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Apologies - this question should have been about 2.0.0.x throughout.
>> Can I ask it again, please? :-)
>>
>> How extensive are the Vista compatibility changes?
> There are different levels of compatibility some of which are required
> and others that are nice to haves. For starters:
> * New default user app API's.
> * UAC (User Account Control) which will elevate a process on launch.
> This is used when setting the app as the OS default.
> note: We had / have several other issues that were discovered with the
> existing setting the app as default code some of which also required the
> app to be shimmed.
> * Requesting elevated privileges when launching updater.exe.
And we're planning to do all this on the 2.0 stable branch?
Gerv
Mike Shaver
> And we're planning to do all this on the 2.0 stable branch?
Yes.
Mike