209853 - Multiple versions installed in the same directory

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(SeaMonkey :: Installer, defect)

Description

[kuhsupko]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

I first installed version 1.3a of Mozilla on a XP box with multiple accounts.  I
installed it with administrative permissions as one user. It installed as
directed under the "Program Files" directory. I transferred the Netscape
profiles and began using Mozilla.

Recently, the upgrade screen for 1.4 showed up and I did the upgrade with
admistrative permissions as a different user to the same location (ie. "Program
Files").  The upgrade went fine and I was able to use the browser as that user.  

When I switched back to the first user, I was informed that version 1.4 was now
available and asked if I wanted to upgrade.  Additionally, a different "Profile
manager" now exists for that user.

Do I upgrade to 1.4 even though the "about" shows I'm running 1.4?  Why are
there two different "profile managers" for the same program?



Reproducible: Didn't try

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install 1.3 as one admin user
2. Upgrade to 1.4 as a different user
3. Enjoy the confusion

Actual Results:  
When you switch back to the 1.3 admin user, you should be prompted to upgrade to
1.4.

Expected Results:  
Mozilla should be using the install directory structure for the storage of
software installation files, not the User directory.  That way there is only one
copy to install to and permits the valid installation of multiple versions.

It would be useful to have the crash reports available in Mozilla so the
description of the module could be added here.

Comment 1

[WD]

Not sure if it's a dupe, but see also bug 200651
Mozilla should never be installed over top of any existing installation.   Doing
so will cause problems.

Comment 2

[Sean Su]

This is not a dupe of bug 200651.  The problem the reporter is seeing is
something else.

Reporter, what you are seeing is that the profiles for mozilla is stored in the
windows' user profile (wherever %USERPROFILE% points to).  When you changed the
windows' user, mozilla uses the new %USERPROFILE% dir to store it's profile
information.

This is as designed.  You cannot have the same mozilla profile for one windows'
user account as compared with another windows' user account.

Though mozilla informing you that there's a new 1.4 available when you already
have it installed, sounds like a bug, but not an installer bug as the installer
does not mess with mozilla profiles (right now).

Comment 3

[Thomas]

From Comment #2 I understand this can be marked as WONTFIX?

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.