Author Topic: Firefox 45.5 Install issues  (Read 3138 times)

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 7
  • -Receive: 88
  • Posts: 1142
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2017, 04:52:07 am »
Andi, I also downloaded the RPMs and unpacked them.  The DLLs that were missing were not in those packages. 

The fact that you don't have any problems implies that the missing DLLs are included in something you have installed but I haven't.  This is why I was asking for a zip with ALL the dependencies.   Assuming that some DLLs from other programs will be available is very bad practice - the only time that is workable is if those DLLs are an integral part of the OS - since they are not they should be supplied.

The RPMs probably pull in other RPMs. Unluckily it looks like you might have to download the source RPMs and unpack them to get the list. Could try looking at the RPM with a text editor, where close to the top will be a list of DLLs (not packages), eg for hunspell,
gcc1.dll hunspel0.dll hunspell-en-US intl8.dll libc066.dll libcx0.dll ncurses5.dll readln6.dll rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) stdcpp6.dll tinfo5.dll.
Simplest would be to have a test machine with RPM and install the RPMs and copy the needed DLLs etc to your LIBPATH.

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 24
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2017, 08:01:37 am »
Thanks for that information Dave.  We gave that system up as a bad job years ago when we tried using SUSE on our servers.

André Heldoorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 37
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2017, 11:41:30 am »
Thanks for that information Dave.  We gave that system up as a bad job years ago when we tried using SUSE on our servers.

It's still possible to obtain all DLLs without a digital package manager. This time the package manager command-line was the main clue. So were new requirements mentioned here. I do not have a list of all required DLLs and archives, because DLLs can be used by other apps too and I've never recorded all possible DLL hell requirements of all apps. I don't know if a digital package manager uses ATTRIB +R, but I do execute that command for 6 DLLs which used to have this attribute set.

Greg Pringle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2017, 02:03:59 pm »
Once I loaded the list of requirements 45 started.

Now, can anyone shed light on why when run on my system the response is very slow?

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 12
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2017, 02:31:16 pm »
Hi Greg,

...Now, can anyone shed light on why when run on my system the response is very slow?

Several others have noticed this problem already...I logged a ticket with the FF folks, see => https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/issues/208, sadly not much activity on that issue at the moment.

On my machine the 38 vs 45 difference is so significant that is feels like a proverbial "day & night" difference...that's how unusable 45 is. Subsequently I went backt o 38, hard to understand why 45 was deemed suitable for wider release...???

Dont' get me wrong, I sure as hell appreciate the work that goes into this, but there has to be a sort of benchmark standard, even within the OpenSource community, which must be passed before software is released. All Enterprise software enviornments I have ever been part of followed precisely that, multiple testing cycles before any end-users would be asked to try stuff out. I get that it's officially a BETA, but as advertised it is billed as BETA 8, so presumably this "ready for wider audience" benchmark was passed...again, not sure how, too many people seem to be stuck on basic usability.

Greg Pringle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 2
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2017, 02:47:48 pm »
Well, 45 is still faster than OS/2 2.1 was on my laptop.

I am also glad I am not the one to do the debugging.

There have been NSPR problems in the past that produced slow response and it was improved.

Andi B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 12
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2017, 02:49:47 pm »
Quote
but there has to be a sort of benchmark standard, even within the OpenSource community, which must be passed before software is released.
Do you know this 'sort of benchmark standards' for OS/2 FF and compared the different versions? What are the results?

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 12
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2017, 04:02:59 pm »
Hi Andi,

...Do you know this 'sort of benchmark standards' for OS/2 FF and compared the different versions? What are the results?

No, I do not know the specifics, other then knowing that there are general FF test-scripts. The Mozilla FF Developer resource site has all the pertinent detials, see => https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/QA. I can only guess that this BETA 8 release passed all of these. Of course I have looked through the FF Wiki (https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/wiki), but other than general release info found there, there are no reports to tell what tests passed and what failed. Maybe it is all locked up in the source tree somewhere. I am also on the mailing list so I certainly see the issues which are being reported and resolutions being provided, but that is all...would love to see more, maybe as an OS/2 user with significant amount of software development experience I could contribute something???

My feedback re: testing benchmarks is based on my professional experience as a database (Oracle) software developer...believe me, at the Enterprise level in particular, you dare NOT release something even to a UAT (User Acceptance Test) that is not nearly 99.9% complete. The reality of the corporate life is different then this OpenSource thing, I understand that, but underlying software engineering principles should NOT be!

Given the issues being reported on this release it begs the question whether the methodology we follow is capable of delivering?

Herwig Bauernfeind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2017, 02:07:54 pm »
I have to address some statements in this discussion:

Quote
OS/2's human package manager

Why does OS/2 rely on a human package manager? Because its architecture is from the early 1990ies. No need for automatic package managers back then.

However: It is quite arrogant to assume that all other OS maintainers (no matter whether these are the Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, whoever guys) are rather dim and incompetent to create such beasts for other OSes when in reality they were not needed. 201x software (especially bigger programs) are simply too complex for a manual approach.

Firefox 45 is a 2016 piece of software: The problems to get all DLLs together are not OS/2 specific - all the other OSes got package managers to do that job. NOBODY on other OSes asks for specific DLL requirements to be manually downloaded "somewhere" and copied into specific locations - the question for that (unless for specific research purposes) would be considered plain stupid and obsolete.

The RPM/YUM port is an attempt driven by bitwise works and Arca Noae to close this gaping hole in the OS/2 architecture.

So:

If you want to run software the 1990ies way on a 1990ies OS, please use software from the 1990ies - an automatic package manager would not really be required then.

If you want to run software from the 201x on a 1990ies OS, please do as the ones who DO THE WORK on that stuff suggest. We know what we are doing and why we are doing it the way we do it.

If you do not want to do it the suggested way - you are free to do so. You just need to do A LOT OF RTFM and use PMDLL as a tool to overcome the arising difficulties...

Maybe it is time for you to review your point of view. But please don't steal our time by asking 1990ies questions in 2017. They have been solved - use RPM/YUM - that IS the solution.

Quote
It's a disadvantage of lacking competition.

It looks like you are suffering from blatant illusions. I wish the OS/2 market and community was big enough to make competion a healthy option to get the best alternative solution for a problem. The reality is, that the main problem is, to get enough manpower to complete ONE solution for a single problem.

Discussions whether there would have been other (possibly better) solution is senseless - there is simply nobody who will create it.

Critisizing certain aspects of current software (OS and application) is absolutely valid and welcome - however make sure you got a viable alternative solution at hand, a simple rant just is not good enough.

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 24
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2017, 03:37:39 pm »
Herwig, I agree with your sentiments but why the decision to use a package manager from the 1990s, one that didn't work very well then and still doesn't?

We have Warpin that is quite capable of doing the same thing, and in my opinion, much better.  Yes, I know it would take a little more work to use that but until someone gets RPM/YUM certified for use on OS/2 Warpin or manual install is what some of us have to use.

It would also help if there was some way of identifying the unix DLLs to allow regression analysis to find out which ones work in which situations and with which programs (if we use the latest vBox we have to reboot to use OpenOffice 4 and then again reboot to use firefox 38 - not the sort of thing that goes down well in business). 

Andi B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 12
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2017, 04:35:41 pm »
It would also help if there was some way of identifying the unix DLLs to allow regression analysis to find out which ones work in which situations and with which programs (if we use the latest vBox we have to reboot to use OpenOffice 4 and then again reboot to use firefox 38 - not the sort of thing that goes down well in business).
You see how far you came with your decision not to use rpm. If even you as an experienced user end up with such an unusable system what do you think the rest of the crowd will get with your Warpin and 'copying every single dll somewhere and by hand' approach?

Btw. here runs VBOX next to FF45 and SM235 and AOO and qpdfview and Lucide and cups and ePDF and PSI and Samba and ... No need to reboot.

Andreas Kohl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 9
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
    • warpserver.de
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2017, 04:53:52 pm »
I have to address some statements in this discussion:

Quote
OS/2's human package manager

Why does OS/2 rely on a human package manager? Because its architecture is from the early 1990ies. No need for automatic package managers back then.

However: It is quite arrogant to assume that all other OS maintainers (no matter whether these are the Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, whoever guys) are rather dim and incompetent to create such beasts for other OSes when in reality they were not needed. 201x software (especially bigger programs) are simply too complex for a manual approach.

Firefox 45 is a 2016 piece of software: The problems to get all DLLs together are not OS/2 specific - all the other OSes got package managers to do that job. NOBODY on other OSes asks for specific DLL requirements to be manually downloaded "somewhere" and copied into specific locations - the question for that (unless for specific research purposes) would be considered plain stupid and obsolete.

The RPM/YUM port is an attempt driven by bitwise works and Arca Noae to close this gaping hole in the OS/2 architecture.

Well, an (half-ported) package manager from the late 90ies and an update mechanism from early 2000 is the ultimate solution nowadays. These are completely ridiculous explanations.

Quote
So:

If you want to run software the 1990ies way on a 1990ies OS, please use software from the 1990ies - an automatic package manager would not really be required then.

If you want to run software from the 201x on a 1990ies OS, please do as the ones who DO THE WORK on that stuff suggest. We know what we are doing and why we are doing it the way we do it.

In fact on "a 1990ies OS" RPM worked and still works without contortions. I don't judge the experiments of tuppenny-ha'penny people.

Quote
If you do not want to do it the suggested way - you are free to do so. You just need to do A LOT OF RTFM and use PMDLL as a tool to overcome the arising difficulties...

It shuts here like in the circus.

Quote
Maybe it is time for you to review your point of view. But please don't steal our time by asking 1990ies questions in 2017. They have been solved - use RPM/YUM - that IS the solution.

Is this really meant still seriously?

Herwig Bauernfeind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2017, 05:39:23 pm »
Quote
Why RPM/YUM, we have beautiful WarpIN

IBM endorsed RPM/YUM on other systems and there is reason to believe that if OS/2 development had continued, there would be some sort of RPM/YUM for OS/2 from IBM.

About WarpIN: I was a WarpIN fan myself (you possibly know some of my software that came as a WarpIN package) and there were quite some discussions in bitwise, about RPM/YUM being that ugly and WarpIN is so nice anyway.

I had to learn that WarpIN simply is not good enough - it lacks several features direly needed by a modern package manager. From the architecture point of view, extending WarpIN was considered, however the design of WarpIN prevents that.

What we do these days, is to enhance our RPM/YUM to embrace WarpIN.

In addition the number of OS/2 specific features of RPM/YUM is increased and enhanced. Missing features found in WarpIN missing in RPM/YUM are added (for example install a font in OS/2, RPM/YUM cannot do this at the moment - expect to see that change soon).

Quote
if we use the latest vBox we have to reboot to use OpenOffice 4

For sure not an RPM/YUM based installation, as that definitely works. This is exactly the reason, why it does not make sense anymore to install that stuff manually. I cannot answer your question, I simply do not know your machine. If you had done it using RPM/YUM it would work.

Sorry, I understand your feelings, but doing it manually is simply wrong.

Herwig Bauernfeind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2017, 05:51:06 pm »
Quote
Well, an (half-ported) package manager from the late 90ies and an update mechanism from early 2000 is the ultimate solution nowadays.

Ultimate solution? Your words. bitwise never said that. However, the solution that made most sense. And it can't have been that wrong...
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-lpic1-102-5/

Anyway: You are free to provide a better solution. Not just ranting, write the code, provide the packages, do the maintenance. "Hic Rhodos, hic salta!"

Quote
These are completely ridiculous explanations.

They appear ridiculous only if you missed the most important point. I bet you will not guess which one I meant. Just go through my writing once more and do a careful reading.

Hint: Conservative minds often miss that point.

Herwig Bauernfeind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2017, 06:00:07 pm »
Quote
tuppenny-ha'penny people.
Well, neither bitwise nor Arca Noae are IBM, we are much smaller, simpler, you name it. But still better than a person that only is capable of ranting....

Quote
Is this really meant still seriously?
Yes. Being eager to learn, we are waiting for your presentation of ANY better alternative.