Closed
Bug 1390786
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
Provide official 64-bit Windows builds on website
Categories
(Thunderbird :: Untriaged, defect)
Thunderbird
Untriaged
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 634233
People
(Reporter: u600398, Unassigned)
Details
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0 Build ID: 20170809080026
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
Unknown whene this will happen - it is currently not an active goal.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
This got closed because there is no timetable yet? If this is the reason you can close most of all bugs.
(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk, NI for questions) from comment #1) > Unknown whene this will happen - it is currently not an active goal. The issue is still present. I do not know why you have changed it to resolved. There are unofficial 64-bit builds for Windows if you look for it, why is it such a devious task for the official Thunderbird developers? Besides Steam, Thunderbird is the only 32-bit application installed on my computer. I have been using 64-bit since Windows Vista. That is 11 years ago.
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
If you read bug 634233 you will understand that it describes precisely what is needed to make this happen. Marking this bug as a duplicate of bug 634233 means this bug is the same issue, and we don't need two bugs open that describe the same issue
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago → 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
bug 634233 is a meta bug collecting everything required for the overall goal. This is a very specific bug for updating the website with new information once there are stable 64-bit builds. I still wouldn't see this as a duplicate.
Comment 6•7 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Croydon from comment #5) > bug 634233 is a meta bug collecting everything required for the overall > goal. This is a very specific bug for updating the website with new > information once there are stable 64-bit builds. I still wouldn't see this > as a duplicate. That is what I thought as well.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•