105872 - Can't get 0.9.5

Status: VERIFIED WORKSFORME

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Description

[John F. Mayer]

Have made numerous atttempts to download 9.5 (using 9.4 now). Saving 
file to disk: evey downloaded installer is shown by Get Info to be 9.4, 
regardless of which link I follow (so far; no doubt there are paths I haven't 
tried). Only tried to actually install the file (to see if it was just misnamed) 
once, since that time the installer crashed my system. Please advise.

Comment 1

[Zach Lipton [:zach]]

This has nothing in the world to do with bugzilla and I do not want it. 
Reporter: please please please try to _look_ at where you are filing the 
bug before filing it, it should be browser.

Comment 2

[John F. Mayer]

God, Zach, I'd give anything to be as computer-savvy as you are; alas, I'm just 
a lamer klutz. On the other hand, I don't have a pencil neck. 

As it happens, I studied the list of topics; browser didn't seem appropriate, 
since I couldn't even GET the browser in question. But some drop-down menu or 
other - damned if I can find it now - included problems with downloading or 
upgrading under bugzilla, so I made my best guess as to where to file. 
Apparently, I guessed wrong. An appropriate response to my mistake might be 
something like, "Kind Reporter, we are grateful for your attempt to assist in 
the development of Mozilla, but, in this case, your comments have been 
misdirected. Please be so kind as to resubmit your report under the 'browser' 
heading. And thanks for your efforts on behalf of this worthy endeavor."

Please, please take a deep _breath_ and try to _restrain_ your _fury_ in future; 
if you don't want it, don't take it. Do you think I give a rat's ass? My only 
interest in this project is the hope of giving the public a functional 
alternative to IE. I would think you'd want non-technical people contributing to 
this project, so you can gauge its usefulness to people who might otherwise turn 
to AOL. Aren't we, after all, the target market for a GUI browser? Maybe you 
could please, please make the menu a little more clear and, for example, 
specifically state where one is to report download problems; mentioning the 
issue as part of other bug reports, after being urged to try the new build, 
brought no response. I had made about seven different downloads, following 
various paths and using different radio buttons, at over a half hour each on my 
dial-up modem.

At any rate, I will consider myself to have received a written reprimand. How 
many am I allowed before I am terminated? 

Comment 3

[timeless]

Ok, reporter if you're going to write trivial essays, please send them via email
or to the trash can.  As for bugzilla, it's the thing you used to report bugs,
yes it has an installation component, and yes they are probably starting to
regret that but no it clearly had nothing to do with you. ... What browser did
you use to make this bug report? Because bugzilla decided you were using Mac
System 9.x but not a Macintosh (Platform: Other). Among the reasons zach's
comment existed was that bugzilla requires one to reassign, and of course to try
to encourage you to think before you next file a bug against his component.

-- 
As for this bug i'd just as soon mark it invalid, if you're going to complain
about not being able to download mozilla could you please provide some basic
information:

What browser you used.
What urls you used.
How you told the browser to download the urls. (clicking a link, commmand
clicking a link, dragging a link to the desktop ...)

In fact, this might belong to the mozilla.org product since that's where the web
and ftp servers are managed for *.mozilla.org (it kind of makes sense, doesn't it?)

Comment 4

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

John, are you reporting that the links at www.mozilla.org do not point to 0.9.5
builds? You can find all of our 0.9.5 release builds at
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.5/. 

Comment 5

[John F. Mayer]

[e-mail] wrote:
> Ok, reporter if you're going to write trivial essays, please send them via 
> email or to the trash can.

One trivial essay deserves another, I guess. It's amazing how snippish and rude 
folks can be when they don't have to look one another in the eye.

To answer your question (even though you indicate that all discussion here of 
this bug is pointless) I used Mozilla 9.4 (a courageous act on my part since 
"Scrolling Crashes System," but I was cautious); I simply clicked on the 
throbber then followed the homepage links to <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/>, 
where I clicked the link to the Mac download. I tried both the "Open with 
Stuffit" radio button and the "Save to Disk" radio button.

I also tried other links but whether or not they led to the same file I can't 
say. Unfortunately, I did not take copious notes as I, in my naiveté, thought 
the matter would only involve someone intimate with Mozilla taking a look at the 
file and determining if it was the _right_ file or the _wrong_ file. And, yes, 
I'm using OS 9.2 on, obviously, a Mac.

> As for bugzilla, it's the thing you used to report bugs,
> yes it has an installation component, and yes they are probably starting to
> regret that but no it clearly had nothing to do with you...

Not so clear; if I can't download, I can't install. As I explained earlier, the 
description of Bugzilla came as close as any of the categories to being relevant 
to download problems.

> In fact, this might belong to the mozilla.org product...

Apparently even you, Timeless, are not sure under what category I should file 
this report, so maybe I'm not so stupid after all. Please, please mark my bug 
invalid; since I'm pretty sure the file is incorrect on your end, someone else 
is sure to notice eventually. I've wasted enough time with Bugzilla; _my_ life 
is _not_ timeless, and I actually have a girlfriend.  

Comment 6

[John F. Mayer]

Asa Dotzler wrote:
> John, are you reporting that the links at www.mozilla.org do not point to 
> 0.9.5 builds? You can find all of our 0.9.5 release builds at
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla0.9.5/. 

Thank you, Asa, for a helpful and courteous response. I'll try that route.

See, guys, that's all you had to say.

Comment 7

[timeless]

This is rather complicated. All of the mac files for 095 contain the number 5 in
their filename. Did the file you downloaded contain such a number?  I just
checked and all of the links as of Oct 12 16:53 appear to link to binaries
containing the number 5.  As such, i'd like to rule out mozilla.org (claiming
user error).  That would only leave your usage of mozilla0.9.4 [please please
please note that it's 0.9.4 not 9.4] which doesn't make much sense.  I'd really
like to know what happened. it's possible 0.9.4 played tricks on you by
borrowing itself from history, however that's very unlikely.

Back to more interesting stuff, since clearly we aren't getting anywhere w/ your
bug. What about the bugzilla product made you select it? We really do want to
know, because we're trying to avoid people making this mistake.
Ok, let's start over, where did you go to report your bug? i'm guessing
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
if you did that, you had two choices
Report A Bug   - Use the Bugzilla Helper. >
http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/bug-form.html
Enter a new bug report (Advanced)
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi
I just tried the bug-form and i couldn't find any sign of the bugzilla product.
(there's also no trace of bugzilla-helper in your bug report)
Enter bug gives me a list of products
Browser:
> For bugs about the Mozilla Browser
Bugzilla:
> You're using it! This is the place to report bugs on the Bugzilla bug report
management system itself.
mozilla.org:
> Tasks related to the running of the mozilla.org organization itself.
Given this shortened list, most people pick the top entry, which seems rational.

Ok, so you clearly didn't do that, because otherwise you wouldn't have gotten here.

Suppose instead you tried following some of the bugzilla.mozilla.org
instructions (search before filing) then you might have found the Installation &
Upgrading component.
Query Page (Search existing bug reports)
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/query.cgi
search for bugs matching the one you've found.
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/query.cgi
Here I can see the component which you found, so i think i have a solution for
bugzilla.mozilla.org, unfortunately i suspect that can't be implemented.* Set
the default products to Browser, Mail and Evangelism

Since that doesn't work, i think we can try to avert this by inserting annoying
product banner ads at the top of enterbug.cgi

Comment 8

[John F. Mayer]

Well, not so complicated after all, I guess. My last download was from the ftp 
index, where, indeed, the file name included the build number; previously I had 
just clicked a "Download" button (btw, I realize the full name is 0.9.5, but had 
seen others leave off the initial zero and so thought that was an acceptable 
shorthand; I will discontinue that practice [how about just .9.5?]).  When I 
downloaded it, however, the "Get Info" on the installer still, as on previous 
downloads, showed it as the 0.9.4 installer. My only  attempt previously to 
install from one of these downloads had resulted in a system freeze (probably 
for reasons only marginally related to the installer, but I didn't want to take 
chances; my computer's a little wobbly anyhow); nonetheless, I tried it again 
and, sure enough, the installed version seems to be 0.9.5. So it's just the ID 
on the installer that's wrong.

[I suggest the installer include the build number in the installation dialogue, 
and also in the file name of the installed browser {if one is not tidy, various 
builds can get scattered about, one looking pretty much like another}.]

As to what led me to commit my faux pas: I tried, when first seeking to justify 
myself, to retrace my path, but was unable to find the exact point where I 
wandered off the trail; I think one of the links you suggest has refreshed my 
memory; more on that in a moment. I previously recalled there had been some sort 
of drop-down menu that had much the same info as the "enter_bug" page, but with 
the added information that bugzilla also dealt with matters concerning upgrades 
and installation. I reasoned that my bug was not in the 0.9.5 browser itself as, 
at that time, I had not even installed it, and that downloading was closer to 
the upgrading and installation end of things; mozilla.org invited reports of 
problems with the organization itself, and that did not seem to apply, either. I 
realized that the browser category was also likely, but I had to choose one and 
assumed, if I guessed wrongly, I would be pointed in the right direction.

I believe it must have been the "Query" page where I went astray; looking at it 
again I see it mentions the "Installation and Upgrade" component, and that 
phrase, in short, is the reason I chose the Bugzilla route (btw, if I [using 
Netscape 4.7] click back and forth between "Browser" and "Bugzilla" a couple of 
times in the left column, the scroll bar in the "Component" column disappears 
and "Installation and Upgrade" no longer appears as an option; just thought I'd 
mention it).

My solution would be to simply add a category for "Download" problems, but I 
guess you can't have a category for everything. Anyhow, sorry I guessed wrong, 
and, you know, 0.9.5 does seem to be a lot more stable...

Thanks for taking my report for the serious effort it was to help, however 
misguided, and for considering remedies. Pop-up ads or banners might, indeed, 
have scared me off.   

Comment 9

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

John, you are right. The Mac 0.9.5 installer info still identifies it as 0.9.4
in the Show Info window. We screwed up. We have  list of things we do for each
branch in preparation for a Milestone. Changing that string is on the list and
it was missed. I'll see if anyone is interested in replacing the installers with
an updated version name. Thanks for bringing that to my attention (this could
well have been filed as a bug on Product: Browser, Component: Installer)  I hope
that you have better luck with future builds. Thank you for your help in testing
Mozilla and reporting bugs.

Comment 10

[timeless]

thanks for the response. and i think we will work on those banners. fwiw the
current component is probably the best resting place although browser:build
config might have been ok too.

Asa: should we put something somewhere to describe where to file bugs about
Packages?  We have a similar problem w/ bugs reported about blizzard's rpms.

... I think we could add more descriptive text to this component
(mozilla.org:[e-mail]) if we indeed want it to cover the ftp server
and packaging problems.

... we've had other problems like various releases not including psm ...

or we could add components to
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=Derivatives and make
it available (i don't see it in enter bug)...

Comment 11

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

John, I've file the installer version bug as bug 106566. I cc:'d you on that bug
so you'll see mail when it changes. If you're not interested in following it
jsut select your address in the list of CC:s, check the remove checkbox and hit
commit. I'm going to resolve this bug as worksforme since the 0.9.5 build is
available and a new bug for the version has been filed. If you agree with this
can you please select the "Mark bug as Verified" radio button, comment that
you're OK with the resolution and hit the Commit button. Thanks again.

Comment 12

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

packaging problems go to Product:Browser, Component: Build Config (Build Config
[e-mail], [e-mail].  For bugs that result from Mozilla
build problems. "Building" is the process of converting the thousands of Mozilla
source code files into a actual executable software. If a file in a
newly-downloaded build is missing or corrupted, file the bug in this component.
Examples of appropriate bugs: Build date in browser window is incorrect; DLL
files are missing from the ZIP file; or Build contains a zero K executable.). 

problems with the hardware or software that make up the server go to Product:
mozilla.org.

Comment 13

[John F. Mayer]

Looks like a satisfactory resolution to me; the Mac 0.9.5 appears to be a big 
step forward.