Caution about Thunderbird 52 and binary extensions

Wayne Mery vseerror at lehigh.edu
Wed Nov 16 21:27:25 UTC 2016


On 11/16/2016 4:07 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 4:00 PM, Jörg Knobloch <jorgk at jorgk.com> wrote:
>> On 16/11/2016 21:50, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Ugh... now I have to go open 49 Extensions to check for DLL's...
> 
>> That's way too many ;-)
> 
> Heh, yeah, I know, but I really do use most of them... that said, I did
> see a few I probably don't need anymore...
> 
>> Another suggestion. In a few days (watch bug 1314955), download a Daily
>> build and check which extensions stopped working.
> 
> Excellent idea, thanks, I'll do that...
> 
>> I don't think there are many binary extensions around.
> 
> Hopefully - but Murphy really likes me for some reason...

You really don't need to check or worry.  In practical terms no author 
in their right mind would add a binary requirement to their addon unless 
they had to.  And we pretty much know the list of such addons, which 
Kent just stated.


More information about the tb-planning mailing list