User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041026 Firefox/1.0RC1 downloaded rc1 and followed the instructions here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/qa/softwareupdate.html in order to test the software update as requested... it finds the rc1 update, however the radio button does not select on click, and therefore nothing installs!! it lets me click next, however, when i check again after that it still appears in the list! Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. download rc 1 2. follow instructions at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/qa/softwareupdate.html 3. check for updates Actual Results: everything works fine, i just can't install the update Expected Results: let me install the update

Please don't + or - bugs, only set the flag to ?

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1 I see the same behavior (after following the same instructions): RC1 is listed as an available (and "strongly recommended"), but there's no checkbox that I can use to "Choose the 'Firefox 1.0 RC1' option", and there's no indication that anything downloads when I eventually click "Install Now" (the window immediately changes to a happy-looking "Installation finished" screen). (Why "eventually"? Because I first have to look at the "optional components" mentioned below, either by clicking on their radio button or by clicking "Next".) It may or may not be related that the Software Update feature is also listing two "optional components" as available to install/update: the "Quality Feedback Utility" and "The Document Inspector". Those become visible after I click the radio button for "Optional components" (though neither this radio button nor the one for RC1 ever look selected when I click back and forth), but selecting them for installation doesn't appear to download anything, either. Moreover, I _think_ that I've seen Talkback run with this build before, and if "The Document Inspector" is the same as the DOM Inspector, I've used it frequently (tested it just now, in fact). I've actually noticed this problem before, but I'm afraid I hadn't taken the time to mention it before. Finally, the RC1 update information ends with a "More Information..." line. The line isn't marked as a hyperlink in any way, and the cursor doesn't change when hovering over it, but clicking that line opens a new browser window showing the Firefox home page (which of course says nothing about RC1 at all). In fact, clicking it four times opens four new browser windows showing the Firefox home page. If I should actually be submitting separate bug reports for either of those last two issues, let me know.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 262539 ***

(In reply to comment #3) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 262539 *** Then perhaps this is actually two bugs in one, because as far as I can see, bug #262539 doesn't mention that the update doesn't actually install. I suspect that the two issues (button selection and update failure) are unrelated, so perhaps the summary for this bug should be changed, but the fact remains, I can't use Software Update to update to RC1 from 1.0PR. Let me know if there's anything else that I should do.

I can confirm that using Software Update to upgrade from 0.10.1 to 1.0RC1 (on Mac OS X) does not work. Upgrading from 0.10 to 0.10.1 using the software upgrade method doesn't work either, but using Software Update installing the patch for that upgrade DOES work. It does work as expected in Windows. So I don't think that this bug is actually a duplicate of bug 262539. That bug is about the theme issue that causes the radio buttons to not be in the highlighted state, and this bug is about the actual upgrade not working. I doubt that the upgrade doesn't work because of the theme issue...it still knows what you selected, and installing patches through Software Update still works. So I think that this bug should be reopened, and better worded to reflect the fact that the upgrade fails, as described in comment #2.

I believe that we should change the summary on this bug to separate the cosmetic issue from the serious problem: perhaps something like "Software Update from Mac 1.0PR to RC1 does nothing (but claims success)" would be good. I don't have the permissions to do that, though. I have requested blocking-aviary1.0, since 1.0mac has been folded into next week's general 1.0 release and a non-functional update system would be Bad(TM). Regarding comment #5, I don't recall how I installed the 0.10.1 patch; it was probably from a link on the update warning screen that preceeded the Firefox home page. I'm not eager to reinstall 0.10 just to test that, but I can do so if it would be helpful.

(In reply to comment #6) > I believe that we should change the summary on this bug to separate the cosmetic > issue from the serious problem: perhaps something like "Software Update from Mac > 1.0PR to RC1 does nothing (but claims success)" would be good. Steuard, could this issue be covered by bug 266777?

(In reply to comment #7) > Steuard, could this issue be covered by bug 266777? In fact, from the looks of it, this issue _is_ bug 266777. I'm relieved to see that, and to see that it's "fixed". And given that you filed that bug just a few minutes after marking this one as a duplicate, I guess you were even more on top of things than I'd thought. : ) (I didn't think to look for new duplicates when I started to worry about this bug falling off the radar; oops!) Of course, it looks like the fix just avoids the issue (by skipping full app. updates on the Mac), but I totally understand that at this late date. (I don't really know the code at all, so I assume that the patch really does prevent the existence of full updates from being mentioned to the user in any way.) Has a bug been filed yet that requests a more complete solution, perhaps with target version 1.1? (I assume that the eventual intent is to make updates work on the Mac, too.) If not, should I do so? Or should either bug 266777 or this one be re-opened after 1.0 ships? (Re-opening 266777 might be best, since it has the patch history and your summary there is good. I'm still fond of my suggested summary line in comment #6, though.) At any rate, thanks for reassuring me that this problem didn't get lost in the shuffle, and for making sure it was addressed.