Downloaded the update from "Main Server" for Firefox. Now some sites (eg. vodacom4me.co.za) dont display as before. Cannot log in to this site now.

  I downgraded firefox from 2.0.0.10 to 2.0.0.8 and now everything is back to normal! It seems that 2.0.0.10 do have a problem with some type of sites - especially if it is a security site needing passwords.

2.0.0.11 that is going to be released today should fix this regression. Marking accordingly. If it doesn't fix this issue for you, feel free to set to Status New again.

Thanks,
 - Alexander

Thanx for coming back Alexander. I installed firefox 2.0.0.11. Same problem. Downgraded to 2.0.0.6 and all back to normal.

I am wrong.... With 2.0.0.11 I can now log into the site and see my data balances etc. BUT the site is still only showing written characters and no detail info (pictures etc.).

Clicking the "Send Settings" link on the site produce the following: XML Parsing Error: not well-formed
Location: https://www.vodacom4me.co.za/vodacom4me-personal/NoLogin?page=setupYourPhone.do&operation=initOTA
Line Number 28, Column 29: <option value="68">AT&T</option>
----------------------------^

This does NOT happen with the Firefox 2.0.0.6 version.

On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 01:22:07PM -0000, Alwyn wrote:
> This does NOT happen with the Firefox 2.0.0.6 version.
>

Does this still happen for you in 2.0.0.11 ? have you restarted your
system in the meantime?

Can you provide us with a step-by-step testcase to reproduce?

 - Alexander

Hi Alexander,
                      After a lot of investigation I think I finally found the answer to my problem. I completely re-installed Ubuntu 7.1 - this time from a live CD and not an upgrade over the internet! I then disabled ALL updates under SYSTEM-ADMINISTRATION-SOFTWARE SOURCES except "UBUNTU SECURITY UPDATES (GUTSY-SECURITY)". I then allowed the recommended updates and now Firefox 2.0.0.11 is working 100%. It is thus obvious that there is software updates from the other repositories that is causing this problem with 2.0.0.11 but NOT with the older versions of Firefox. Allowing these "other" updates again causes the same problem. To confirm this I even did the same thing on a completely different desktop computer with the same results. It thus seems that the problem is with some other piece of software but to find that is going to be near impossible.
Lesson learned? Don't allow just ANY update on your computer!!!! Rather stick with those from Ubuntu security updates only. I therefor consider this problem solved and thank you for your help. I hope this info will be of value to other Ubuntu 7.1 users.

Please see Question 20724.

 status incomplete

 - Alexander

Alexander, I'm not sure why you're marking this incomplete. Incomplete implies you're waiting for a response from the bug filer, but you haven't asked him to provide any info, and he's just stated that he considers the problem solved, so I don't think you'll be hearing back from him without a direct question. Guidelines on incomplete status indicate the bug should be marked "invalid" at this point, but I'll hold off on that until I hear from you.

Wolfger please read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs/States?highlight=(mozilla) its hoe mozillateam does status to make it easier for us to work with.

Alexader im see that alot in bugs. they upgrade the profile becomes in some way corrupt and if at all possible we should test state of profile before the package is upgraded to tell it either its ok or not but that is something that sounds like it wont work either but an idea simular might help.

Wolfger, reinstalling is not a fix and this was caused by upgrading (atleast im 99% positive) so reguardless of reporter we should look into fixing this.

John, the wiki page you linked me to specifically says that an incomplete bug MUST have one of the following tags:
mt-needreport, mt-needretrace, mt-needtestcase, mt-needtester, likely-dup, mt-needsummary, mt-confirm
This bug has none of those, which indicates it is a triage definition of "incomplete".

However, I agree with you that a bug still exists regardless of what the reporter says, which is why I did not treat it like a normal triage bug and mark to invalid. I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm just trying to help the process along. :-)

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:35:32AM -0000, wolfger wrote:
> John, the wiki page you linked me to specifically says that an incomplete bug MUST have one of the following tags:
> mt-needreport, mt-needretrace, mt-needtestcase, mt-needtester, likely-dup, mt-needsummary, mt-confirm
> This bug has none of those, which indicates it is a triage definition of "incomplete".

Those are outdated and are about to be reworked during this cycle.
>
> However, I agree with you that a bug still exists regardless of what the
> reporter says, which is why I did not treat it like a normal triage bug
> and mark to invalid. I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm just trying to
> help the process along. :-)

Yes, this problem still exists and we should wait a bit to see if
someone else runs into it.

Thanks for your help!

 - Alexander

I have updated the link to hold before we get to our meeting later this month. It now states to please add tags and we will go from there.
Wolfger as you stated it does say that but you didnt add a tag to the bug you changed status. Please dont get confused by status and tags. if it should have a tag add a tag to it instead of moving status to confirmed when the bug cant be confirmed atleast for our team to feel comfortable.
Here is the fix before meeting:
If you think this bug should be marked confirmed please add the tag mt-confirm and one of our team members will look at it and decide if enough info is there to move it to confirmed state.

Thanks for helping with our bug work and hope you continue to help, any questions find us in #ubuntu-mozillateam on IRC and we can further help with your questions.

Since it's been a very long time since any additional info was added to this bug, I'm just checking to see if this is still an issue, and find out what additional work should be done on this bug.

After some later updates the problem disappeared so this bug is no
longer valid.
Thank you.

On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 21:01 +0000, JaysonRowe wrote:
> Since it's been a very long time since any additional info was added to
> this bug, I'm just checking to see if this is still an issue, and find
> out what additional work should be done on this bug.
>

Closing as fixed with updates.