Create ReadMe.OS2 for Firefox/Thunderbird

VERIFIED FIXED

Status

()

VERIFIED FIXED
14 years ago
13 years ago

People

(Reporter: mozilla, Assigned: mkaply)

Tracking

Trunk
x86
OS/2
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(3 attachments, 4 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
Now that we have an OS/2 specific readme file containing the most important
infos on this platform, we should try to produce a similar file for Firefox (and
Thunderbird), that takes into account the specifics there. The one
http://getfirefox.com/releases/ that is there at the moment only points to
<http://getfirefox.com/releases/> which doesn't help OS/2 users much.

Besides DLL conflicts the most important topic seems to be getting http links in
Thunderbird to open in Firefox and vice versa for mailto: links (->
ConfigApps/URL WPS objects). MOZILLA_HOME as a trick to let Firefox's import
routine find the Mozilla profile should also get mentioned. Anything else?
(Reporter)

Comment 1

14 years ago
Created attachment 176399 [details]
README.os2 for Firefox
Attachment #176399 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176399 - Flags: review?(stevew)
(Reporter)

Comment 2

14 years ago
Created attachment 176400 [details]
README.os2 for Thunderbird

Almost the same file for Thunderbird. Am I right that Thunderbird interprets
the MOZILLA_HOME variable differently? On my system I set it to
MOZILLA_HOME=m:\ to get the Mozilla profiles in m:\Mozilla\Profiles and the
Firefox profile in m:\Mozilla\Firefox. For Thunderbird I then get it in
m:\Thunderbird... This looks like a bug to me...

With respect to the Seamonkey readme I added a section on the (three)
environment variables for OS/2 to both Aviary readmes. Anything important
missing or suggestions for better wording?
Attachment #176400 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176400 - Flags: review?(stevew)
(Reporter)

Comment 3

14 years ago
Created attachment 176401 [details] [diff] [review]
Makefile changes

This changes Makefile.in's for FF and TB so that the README.os2 files go into
mozilla\browser\locales\en-US\README.os2 and mozilla\mail\app\README.os2,
respectively, in the source tree.
Attachment #176401 - Flags: review?(mkaply)

Comment 4

14 years ago
I have no ability to change the flags on the attachments, but the readme files
look good to me.  Both readme files have this typo:
"By the default the installation routine"

Also, you might want to highlight this a bit more:
"If you migrate from Mozilla to <x> you might want to set MOZILLA_HOME so that
<x>'s import routine can find the existing Mozilla profiles."

I don't know if a whole subsection on migrating previous data is called for, but
perhaps rephrasing it slightly would work (this probably isn't perfect):
"If you are migrating from Mozilla, <x>'s import routine will only find the
existing Mozilla profile data if MOZILLA_HOME is correctly set to point to it."
Steve - you have the power.
(Reporter)

Comment 6

14 years ago
Created attachment 176629 [details]
Revised FF readme

Revised FF readme per stevew's comments. Carrying over his r+.
Attachment #176399 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #176629 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176629 - Flags: review+
(Reporter)

Comment 7

14 years ago
Created attachment 176632 [details]
Revised TB readme

Similarly revised readme for TB including what I took for a r+ from stevew.
Attachment #176400 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #176632 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176632 - Flags: review+
(Reporter)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #176399 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176399 - Flags: review?(stevew)
(Reporter)

Updated

14 years ago
Attachment #176400 - Flags: superreview?(mkaply)
Attachment #176400 - Flags: review?(stevew)
(Reporter)

Comment 8

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 176401 [details] [diff] [review]
Makefile changes

Mike, do you want me to revise this using cp instead of $(INSTALL) so that we
get a README.txt and not a README.os2 in the installation dir?
I'll make the cp change when I check it in. Thanks for this awesome work.
(Reporter)

Comment 10

14 years ago
Mike, do you require me to do anything or did you just not have time to check
this in yet?

Comment 11

14 years ago
No I'm just a slacker. We do need the rename, though like we did for Suite.

Comment 12

14 years ago
So looking at the existing readme.txt files, they are just bad. So we'll have
beetter files than everyone else? :)
(Reporter)

Comment 13

14 years ago
Created attachment 184969 [details] [diff] [review]
Update to current makefiles, including renaming

These changes to the makefiles seem to do the trick with renaming. cp of course
only works if README_FILES contains only one file, I hope nobody gets the idea
to add another one and break this... Rich, is it possible to test this as well?
Mike, can you get this in or at least use for a "Deer Park" release if you do
one?

Yeah, FF and TB have more important problems on OS/2 but at least we get useful
readmes. :-)
Attachment #176401 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #184969 - Flags: superreview?(mozilla)
Attachment #184969 - Flags: review?(dragtext)

Comment 14

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 184969 [details] [diff] [review]
Update to current makefiles, including renaming

WFM - review+
Attachment #184969 - Flags: review?(dragtext) → review+
Attachment #184969 - Flags: superreview?(mozilla) → superreview?(benjamin)

Comment 15

14 years ago
Comment on attachment 184969 [details] [diff] [review]
Update to current makefiles, including renaming

This should really be in a subdirectory browser/locales/en-US/os2/README.txt so
that we can $(INSTALL) it with the other files.
Attachment #184969 - Flags: superreview?(benjamin) → superreview-
(Reporter)

Comment 16

13 years ago
Created attachment 190543 [details] [diff] [review]
Makefile changes with new subdir and $(INSTALL)

OK, this now works as Benjamin suggested if the OS/2 READMEs get checked in
into new subdirs {browser,mail}/locales/en-US/os2/README.txt.
(Reporter)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #184969 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #190543 - Flags: superreview?(benjamin)
Attachment #190543 - Flags: review?(mozilla)
(Reporter)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #176401 - Flags: review?(mozilla)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #190543 - Flags: superreview?(benjamin) → superreview+
(Reporter)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #190543 - Flags: approval1.8b4?

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #190543 - Flags: approval1.8b4?
Attachment #190543 - Flags: review?(mozilla) → review+
Done. finally.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Reporter)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #176632 - Flags: superreview?(mozilla)
(Reporter)

Updated

13 years ago
Attachment #176629 - Flags: superreview?(mozilla)
(Reporter)

Comment 18

13 years ago
Mike, did something go wrong with your checkins? In the nightly builds and when
I check out the readme.txt files every linebreak looks like 0d0d0a in hex so
that in normal OS/2 editors a blank line appears between all other lines (my vi
shows an extra ^M).
Very strange. No idea what happened.

I did an OS22unix and rechecked them in - that should fix it.
(Reporter)

Comment 20

13 years ago
Yes, that helped. Thanks.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.