Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:37:50 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: upgrade from Firefox 3.0 to Firefox 3.5 Message-ID: <20090718013750.GA98238@kokopelli.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20090718022822.07ca9f17.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20090717224837.GA52217@kokopelli.hydra> <20090718014347.1a182ef7.freebsd@edvax.de> <20090718000736.GA90771@kokopelli.hydra> <20090718022822.07ca9f17.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:28:22AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wro= te: > >=20 > > Do you know this from personal experience, or are you just assuming that > > I won't pull out all my hair five seconds after I discover it deleted a > > bunch of shit I wanted to keep? >=20 > As I said, I can confirm it for bookmarks in Firefox. It's a similar > thing with Thunderbird's mailboxes. >=20 > The rest is just deduction from UNIX principles, formed into a kind > of counter-question: Why (and how) should user data be saved within > the application's directory structures? I've learned a long time ago to not rely on deducing things from a Unixy perspective when it comes to big, fat, bloated GUI applications. If that worked most of the time with such applications, Firefox would be a very different application today. I found the fact that Firefox switched from plain text to an unreadable database format for storing cookie exceptions somewhat surprising (and it broke a cookie policy exception searching utility I had written because Firefox doesn't provide worthwhile cookie policy exception searching). >=20 > The update process will ONLY have effect on the files installed by the > port. Are your user files mentioned in the corresponding control files > of the port? Surely not - how could they? The port will only delete > those files that are list as have been installed by the port, nothing > more, nothing less. Good point. Thanks for the perspective. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Henry Spencer: "Those who don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkphJ24ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKU56gCgoO66jeSnrC3CqrK1s8C+R60k flcAoJaBS/vKxLS/+ZwurNbcqfgP8j9W =jQCO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090718013750.GA98238>