Author Topic: QT5 simplebrowser  (Read 23059 times)

Tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2021, 05:24:17 pm »
Hi there
In the personal notebook it works for me with its limitations. But when trying at work, the program does not start. I am attaching the file simplebrowser-check.log Some dlls are not loaded.

From your log:

Code: [Select]
Unable to load DLL 'Qt5WebW'.  DosLoadModule returned: 2
OS/2 reports 'AVUTIL56' contributed to the failure.

avutil56.dll is part of ffmpeg-libs 4.2.2-3, which is a prerequisite for the browser (the older version ffmpeg-libs 2.8.6-2 contains avutil54.dll).

Also from your log:

Code: [Select]
Loading DLL 'Qt5WebC' --> NOT loaded!
Unable to load DLL 'Qt5WebC'.  DosLoadModule returned: 2
OS/2 reports 'AVUTIL56' contributed to the failure.

Same reason: avutil56.dll.

Tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 6
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2021, 05:28:30 pm »
[D:\HOME\Downloads\qtwebtest5_4_pub]highmem -c *.dll
Processing module : Qt5Core.dll  MODIFIED
Processing module : Qt5WebC.dll                        >==MODIFIED???
Processing module : Qt5WebH.dll  MODIFIED
Processing module : Qt5WebW.dll  MODIFIED

I had the same situation. Try rebooting, and after that use highmem *only* on qt5webc.dll:

Code: [Select]
cd \home\downloads\qtwebtest5_4pub
highmem -c qt5webc.dll

That worked for me.

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 226
  • Posts: 3151
  • Karma: +59/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #62 on: February 10, 2021, 06:44:54 pm »
Also remember that being a simple proof of concept, it doesn't do things like expand URLs like we're used to so to go to OS2World, you need to enter the full url, https://www.os2world.com/
it really needs copy and paste for entering URLs and passwords.
The profile also seems to easily get screwed up and need clearing with cleanup-caches.sh.
Anyone upgrading FFmpeg with a zip should also install the ffmpeg-legacy-libs for the older Mozilla browsers as well, I believe YUM should do this automatically.

Pete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 51
  • Posts: 1098
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #63 on: February 10, 2021, 09:40:02 pm »
Hi All

Well, I seem to have all needed libs installed and up to date but still no text on webpages - see attached No-Text.png for an example.

Any ideas on cause of lack of text?


Regards

Pete


Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 226
  • Posts: 3151
  • Karma: +59/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2021, 09:51:12 pm »
Font problem? Try rebuilding the cache,
Code: [Select]
fc-cache -r

Hopefully it isn't looking for a font you don't have, though it should substitute.
Otherwise, perhaps a DLL is still not quite the right version?

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 15
  • -Receive: 32
  • Posts: 990
  • Karma: +21/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2021, 01:39:09 am »
I understand all the excitement regarding this...but with all due respect I wholeheartedly question the wisdom of just unleashing instructions to updated multiple RPM packages as a pre-requisite to getting the browser to work.

There are numerous EXP only repo RPMs here, each one possibly screwing up your working OS/2 install.

Having myself moved away from relying on ZIP installs a while ago, I for one wish this test was packaged/re-packaged as a ZIP file with all the DLLs included. The other approach just seems far too risky (unless you of course can accept the risk and have the stomach AND skillset to back yourself out of whatever predicament you end up in).

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 226
  • Posts: 3151
  • Karma: +59/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2021, 05:59:23 am »
I have an install with netlabs-exp for testing as well as this install with netlabs-rel. I simply wrote a wrapper that sets things up and uses the netlabs-exp install.
Code: [Select]
set HOME=w:\home
set UNIXROOT=k:
set LIBC_BREAKPOINT_ABORT=1
set QTWEBENGINE_CHROMIUM_FLAGS=--single-process
set BEGINLIBPATH=.\.;k:\usr\lib;%BEGINLIBPATH%
set LIBPATHSTRICT=T
simplebrowser.exe > simplebrowser.log 2>&1

Adjust as needed. I run it from the directory where I installed the simplebrowser.
Bitwise does recommend not using a production system for testing this.

roberto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 19
  • -Receive: 13
  • Posts: 617
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2021, 09:36:52 am »
Hello Tom
Indeed I need to install the ffmpeg-libs library. He hadnĀ“tused it before. Then I passed the dll to highmem, and when I tried to execute the simplebrowser.exe, I generated a trap file. Finally reinstall qtwebtest5_4_pub and with normal memory it is working perfect.
Thank you

Andi B.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 28
  • Posts: 592
  • Karma: +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2021, 11:21:21 am »
...I for one wish this test was packaged/re-packaged as a ZIP file with all the DLLs included. The other approach just seems far too risky (unless you of course can accept the risk and have the stomach AND skillset to back yourself out of whatever predicament you end up in).
It seems you have missed all these discussions about the problems different dlls in different versions in different directories will give. Especially for people who do not fully understand how OS/2 loads (and not unloads) and uses dlls. And the possibilities and restrictions of LIBPATHSTRICT and BEGINLIBPATH.

Believe me, when you want to test experimental software like this it is much easier for you to set up a separate ArcaOS partition with the experimental repos enabled than start playing around with dlls coming from different zip files.


Eugene Tucker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 60
  • -Receive: 12
  • Posts: 165
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2021, 02:20:31 pm »
Set up a separate test partition. That is what I use for everything Any one who does otherwise may be courting disaster if their system tanks.

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 15
  • -Receive: 32
  • Posts: 990
  • Karma: +21/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #70 on: February 11, 2021, 02:44:32 pm »
Hi Andi,

It seems you have missed all these discussions about the problems different dlls in different versions in different directories will give. Especially for people who do not fully understand how OS/2 loads (and not unloads) and uses dlls. And the possibilities and restrictions of LIBPATHSTRICT and BEGINLIBPATH...

To the contrary, I have read all of that and will happily point out that while the README for this test install does recommend NOT using a production system, it than happily proceeds to walk you through a whole bunch of EXP repo installs. For those in our group who do not understand the potential problems this could cause the README warning should have been a LOT more explicit, as in: DO NOT INSTALL ON A PRODUCTION SYSTEM!

So here is the thing: the DLL problem (RPM caused or not) has been an on-going issue for us all for quite some time. This I think we can all agree on.

While an approach like what Dave has deployed is probably the closest one can get to having a reliable combination of test and production configuration in a single running OS2 install (having established the virtual walls through separate paths and environment variables), it is un-reasonable to expect that everyone else is savvy enough to do so on their own.

Andi, I agree that a separate TEST partition install should be used for testing here. But in cases where this is not available the README should be more explicit about NOT doing it otherwise. Beyond that, if you still want to plug away, a single ZIP deployment would allow you to start the test immediately post a clean boot, where none of the other application specific DLLs have been loaded.

Recognize please what I am suggesting here: "clean boot" means having NO apps started prior to testing the QT browser, so very little - if any - DLL conflicts short of the LIBC based foundational stuff.

So why is this a problem for me in the first place? Actually, I have no issues building the required "safety box" configuration, have been doing this for a while now with numerous pieces of software. My issue here is that for the QT Browser alpha test to be relevant and produce reliable results you need a much wider audience to participate. I question the wisdom of expecting good representative results from those who test on separate partitions only...how big of a group is that in our already tiny OS/2 community?

ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 1317
  • Karma: +13/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #71 on: February 11, 2021, 02:51:02 pm »
I have to agree with Dariusz regarding the supply of the external DLLs that are required from the experimental repository for the simple reason those DLLs can change being experimental.  At least, if the DLLs were supplied we would all be starting from the same point.

In my case I have a computer for running things that are questionable.  It is equiped with 3 removable disk trays and when I want to try something it is a matter of just slotting in a bare bones bootable disk plus a disk for for the test program/s.  If it doesn't work or something goes wrong all I have to do is remove both disks, reformat them and re image the boot disk and I'm ready to start again

Neil Waldhauer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 62
  • Posts: 746
  • Karma: +20/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blonde Guy
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #72 on: February 11, 2021, 03:44:14 pm »
The work on the browser is slower than anticipated. I listened to someone say it would be out in 2017. Now, listening to what is being worked, I wonder if 2021 is realistic goal. Further, how can the project survive financially? I'm crossing my fingers that it will continue, and that the community will contribute enough to keep Bitwise in the OS/2 browser development business.

In any case, anyone who wants to could provide the DLLs needed. This forum accepts attachments up to 25MB.

I use a test system just for this project. It is set up exactly as the readme suggests. I already know a system with .exp could be modified beyond repair.

The new web engine render some web pages a lot faster than Firefox. There are still features missing. Some web pages will not render. While I need access to those pages, I'd rather have Bitwiseworks continue on their current path to provide a browser that works on some web sites. Firefox 45 has some pretty serious flaws.

After the new browser is released, I hope some of the missing pieces can be developed to pick up the rest of my critical websites.

I am getting system traps and process traps. I expect these to become less with more development time.
Expert consulting for ArcaOS, OS/2 and eComStation
http://www.blondeguy.com

Andi B.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 28
  • Posts: 592
  • Karma: +7/-1
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #73 on: February 11, 2021, 04:04:49 pm »
Quote
Recognize please what I am suggesting here: "clean boot" means having NO apps started prior to testing the QT browser, so very little - if any - DLL conflicts short of the LIBC based foundational stuff.
And how often do you think you have to explain people even here at os2world forum that f.i. AOO quick starter or smturbo or cups or .... did load some of the dlls although the users persists on saying 'I didn't start ANY app' after boot?

It's simply unsupportable and unreproducable environments you're asking for. Problem reports of such mixed systems are useless at best. Based on past experience usually a lot of wasted time. YMMV. But it's up to the ones who do the work to decide how to get usable feedback in the most efficient way.

Roderick Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 27
  • Posts: 432
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • View Profile
Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2021, 12:14:02 am »
The work on the browser is slower than anticipated. I listened to someone say it would be out in 2017. Now, listening to what is being worked, I wonder if 2021 is realistic goal. Further, how can the project survive financially? I'm crossing my fingers that it will continue, and that the community will contribute enough to keep Bitwise in the OS/2 browser development business.

In any case, anyone who wants to could provide the DLLs needed. This forum accepts attachments up to 25MB.

I use a test system just for this project. It is set up exactly as the readme suggests. I already know a system with .exp could be modified beyond repair.

The new web engine render some web pages a lot faster than Firefox. There are still features missing. Some web pages will not render. While I need access to those pages, I'd rather have Bitwiseworks continue on their current path to provide a browser that works on some web sites. Firefox 45 has some pretty serious flaws.

After the new browser is released, I hope some of the missing pieces can be developed to pick up the rest of my critical websites.

I am getting system traps and process traps. I expect these to become less with more development time.

The IPC (Inter Process Communication is being worked as we speak. After the otter browser will be compiled. So we are not that far off.

As for it taking longer I have said before. Its has taken longer because we have very
few human resources and a large part of the delay has been caused because of things we could not for oversee before the project was started.  See the readme.txt of the QT browser for more details.

Its true we also have had the risk of BWW not receiving funding. I have been working to try and keep it going.

While its a free world a lot of people in my opinion take the free development of BWW simply for granted.
As I mentioned in my Warpstock US presentation we checked the logs of the Netlabs RPM server.
In about one month (during the summer break). We had about 600 unique IP addresses connect with Arca Noae Package Manager to download
updates. Knowing that by far not everybody uses ANPM on a daily basis that gives a much better inside in the private users using
OS/2/ArcaOS. Its a bigger number then we thought it is.

But as always only a small portion contributes financially to BWW.

Based on the amount of email addreses OS/2 VOICE has collected via Paypal for donations I would say maybe between 5 and 10% of the
OS/2 community has donated. The rest download free of charge....

Again donations welcome, they are badly needed:

http://www.os2voice.org/membership.html

Roderick