Re: Fire 0.32.g bugs?

Fire needs to detect messed up permissions and either fix them or tell 
the user that's what the problem is.

Given that we can't really store three prefs files and all the Sessions 
in ~/Library/Preferences it seems like ~/Library/Application Support is 
the right place for it.

-Jason

On Oct 26, 2003, at 10:01 AM, Glenn wrote:
> On 2003.10.21 9:32 PM, "Jason Townsend" <[email protected]> babbled:
>> On Oct 17, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Allyn Crowe wrote:
>>> I've been using fire happily for awhile now.  However after upgrading
>>> to
>>> 0.32.g this morning I'm having all kinds of issues:
>>>
>>> 1.  Can't Add an account
>>> 2.  Toolbar items "disappearing"
>>> 3.  Sounds not working all of the time.  Can send 1 message and it
>>> plays
>>> sound, send another it doesn't.
>>> 4.  Can't open new IM windows
>>
>> You might want to check the permissions on your home directory... can
>> you write to ~/Library/Application Support/Fire? I have not heard of
>> these problems before, except we occasionally get complaints that the
>> account settings don't stick. That seems to always be because of a
>> permissions problem which I have no clue what is causing.
>
>     This is an interesting thread on the mac-games-dev list, with 
> regards to
> the proper place to save user files... Seems you aren't necessarily
> guaranteed write access to ~/Library/Application Support...
>
>     From George Warner (Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)):
>
> The user should always have full access to all files and directories 
> in and
> below their home directory. The problem is that should and do aren't 
> always
> the same. ;-)
>
> I'd put preferences into the ~/Library/Preferences directory (via
> CFPreferences) and things like user dictionaries and application 
> support
> libraries in ~/Library/Application Support. Note: If you create more 
> than
> one support file here _please_ group them together in their own
> sub-directory. If for whatever reason the Application Support folder is
> protected then it would require admin priv's to override (fix?) that
> protection (at install time).
>
>> If Application Support is not guaranteed to be writeable does that
>> imply that a user needs Admin access before an application can
>> install stuff in Application Support?
>
> Only if it's not writeable.
>
> I have three machines in my office that I've just cold installed 
> Panther on.
> All the users that I created on all three machines had full access to 
> their
> ~/Library and sub-directories. This is the way that it _SHOULD_ be. 
> I've
> also got a B&W in the lab that was updated from 10.2.6 where the 
> Application
> Support folder is read-only. How or why? I don't know. Is it wrong? I
> believe so.
>
> Perhaps I'll run Disk Utilities and see if I can "Fix Permissions" on 
> that
> disk. If it changes the access to read-write then I'll stick my neck 
> out and
> say that that's the "official" way it should be and anyone that 
> changes it
> differently is wrong. ;-)
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program.
> Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open
> Source Community?  Make a contribution, and help us add new
> features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Fire-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fire-talk



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program.
Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open
Source Community?  Make a contribution, and help us add new
features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/