upgrade from Firefox 3.0 to Firefox 3.5
perrin at apotheon.com
Sat Jul 18 01:44:26 UTC 2009
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:28:22AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> As I said, I can confirm it for bookmarks in Firefox. It's a similar
> thing with Thunderbird's mailboxes.
> 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
utility I had written because Firefox doesn't provide worthwhile cookie
policy exception searching).
> 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.
Thanks for the perspective.
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."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20090718/5c29d956/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions