Closed
Bug 358935
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
find out whether it's necessary to use version 2.0.0.3 to disable the Vista shim
Categories
(Firefox :: Shell Integration, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WORKSFORME
People
(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: robert.strong.bugs)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [vista] need answer to comment 4 from rstrong)
Microsoft has added a shim to Vista for Firefox 2.0.0.0 thru 2.0.0.2 that makes Firefox behave properly on Vista. We need to find out whether we can release a 2.0.0.1 Vista compatible version or do we have to release it as 2.0.0.3 for the shim to be disabled. Also, it might be possible to include manifests that will disable the shim.
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8.1.1?
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
Not blocking 1.8.1.1 based on recent discussion around Vista, so let's try to get a handle on this for 1.8.1.2.
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x+
Flags: blocking1.8.1.1?
Flags: blocking1.8.1.1-
Comment 2•18 years ago
|
||
Does this block 1.8.1.2? Not sure what this bug means
Flags: blocking1.8.1.2+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
This is to verify whether we have to use 2.0.0.3 to disable the shim. If not, we will use 2.0.0.2
Updated•18 years ago
|
Summary: Is it necessary to use version 2.0.0.3 to disable the Vista shim → find out whether it necessary to use version 2.0.0.3 to disable the Vista shim
Updated•18 years ago
|
Summary: find out whether it necessary to use version 2.0.0.3 to disable the Vista shim → find out whether it's necessary to use version 2.0.0.3 to disable the Vista shim
Comment 4•18 years ago
|
||
Rob: Could you please look into this and find out what we need to do here? Thanks!
Assignee: nobody → robert.bugzilla
Updated•18 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [vista]
Updated•18 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [vista] → [vista] need answer to comment 4 from rstrong
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
Haven't heard anything about this bug for a while, just wanted to make sure we don't miss it for the upcoming 2.0.0.2 release if we need to get something in place now to be in better shape for 2.0.0.3. If it's not a blocker, we can remove the flag and get to it next time. Cc'ing dougt and sspitzer in case they know anything about the shim.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•18 years ago
|
||
I gave a verbal update to dveditz on Monday that was basically that this won't be investigated until such a time as the patches required for Vista compatibility are complete
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
Rob, does anything need to be done here, or are we ok?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
From the QA everyone has done it appears that we are ok.
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
Summary: On the branch we support VC6 and VC7. To disable the shim we need to either release 2.0.0.3 or add a manifest that includes the Windows Vista extension. I haven't verified this but it appears that vc8 is required to add a manifest that includes the Windows Vista extension per the following since the article only applies to Microsoft Visual Studio 2005: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925378/ This leads me to believe that adding the Windows Vista extension would be to say the least non-trivial for vc6 and vc7 for the branch. This along with not being able to find much info on accomplishing this for vc6 / vc7 and the affects of doing this to earlier versions of Windows (e.g. the restart mentioned in the linked kb article above) led me to the conclusion that we should just release as 2.0.0.3 to disable the shim as originally agreed to. and to verify via QA if the shim causes any problems after the Vista patches had landed. Resolving -> wfm
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9) > should just release as 2.0.0.3 to disable the shim as originally agreed to. and > to verify via QA if the shim causes any problems after the Vista patches had > landed. should be "or to verify... etc." if we decided that we wanted to release as 2.0.0.2
Updated•17 years ago
|
Flags: wanted1.8.1.x+
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•