Author Topic: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4  (Read 10602 times)

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 167
  • Posts: 2341
    • View Profile
Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:36:34 am »
Hi I've uploaded https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/dry-comm-esr24/downloads/firefox-dev-24.8.1b4.en-US.os2.7
This is based on the same Gecko code as the Bitwise Firefox beta 4 release with the addition of libsydneyaudio to re-enable HTML5 sound.
This build should have fewer requirements then the Bitwise build, the mzfntcfgft package, libc066.dll and mmap.dll. I've also uploaded a build of mmap to https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/dry-comm-esr24/downloads/mmap.zip which does not have the gcc1.dll and stdcpp6.dll requirements.
Build is currently only lightly tested.

OS4User

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 42
  • -Receive: 7
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2015, 09:02:40 am »
TNX, works fine for me

TeLLie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2015, 05:44:32 pm »
Hi Dave,

I really appreciate that you build TB and SM, FF ..

But are not you afraid that this evokes precisely a DLL war ??

I'm afraid it will, but that's just my 2cents thought...



Doug Bissett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 52
  • Posts: 1292
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2015, 08:34:33 pm »
Quote
But are not you afraid that this evokes precisely a DLL war ??

What do you mean by that? Later DLL versions are supposed to be backward compatible, or they need a new name. If they are statically linked, the program uses what the programmer included. The "problem" is trying to determine what DLL version you have installed. The DLLs that come from the YUM project don't seem to have any BLDLEVEL information, so they can't be queried. YUM is supposed to keep a database of what it installs, but it looks like that can be messed up if something replaces the file, and it doesn't get recorded.

If you mean a war about how, the DLLs will get installed/updated, You need to pick your method. The developers seem to like RPM/YUM, some users like ZIP files, and others like WarpIn files. The user needs to pick one method, and stick to it. Mix and match is not a good idea. You do need to be very careful to install updates in the proper order, so you don't down level something. If WarpIn has the proper settings, it will ask before replacing a later version of a file. With ZIP files, you are on your own. Unfortunately, file date and time is no guarantee that that was when the file was created.

Andreas Schnellbacher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 26
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2015, 12:44:04 am »
YUM is supposed to keep a database of what it installs, but it looks like that can be messed up if something replaces the file, and it doesn't get recorded.
Sure. All package distribution facilities rely on the assumption that they are the only ones that both edit the database and the files.

Imagine a tool that uninstalls a package controlled by the WarpIN database without letting WarpIN know about it. That would create the same mess. It's not RPM- or Yum-specific.

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 167
  • Posts: 2341
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2015, 02:45:55 am »
Hi Dave,

I really appreciate that you build TB and SM, FF ..

But are not you afraid that this evokes precisely a DLL war ??

I'm afraid it will, but that's just my 2cents thought...

How so? TB and SM use the same DLLs as the Bitwise FFb4 minus a gcc*dll or two.
The FF-devel build uses the mzfntcfgft package that was a requirement since FF10.0.12 and mmap.dll. Either the RPM installed or the one I built without the gcc dll dependency as they are interchangeable.
I would have statically linked mmap.dll but it causes socket problems.

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 11
  • -Receive: 167
  • Posts: 2341
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2015, 02:50:01 am »
I've posted the forgotten xqs files, https://bitbucket.org/dryeo/dry-comm-esr24/downloads/firefox-dev-24.8.1.b4.en-US.os2.xqs.zip.
Also a reminder that my builds are not associated with Bitwise other then using much of the same code so issues should only be raised with them if reproducible with their build.

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2015, 03:03:01 am »
Dave!

Thank you!!! FF is chugging away here real nice...I have to say the initial assessment is positive, looks like it's noticeably faster as compared to the 17x releases.

I did start on the install of the Bitworks release, but the DLL nightmare just got to be too much...and attempting to pull aparts RPMs didn't even work for me...so thanks again for coming through with this.

Dmitriy Kuminov

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 4
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2015, 11:00:10 pm »
Dariusz, what exactly do you mean by the DLL nightmare? And what was the problem with RPMs?
CPO of bww bitwise works GmbH

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2015, 08:30:45 pm »
Dariusz, what exactly do you mean by the DLL nightmare? And what was the problem with RPMs?

Hi Dimitriy,

Well, basically I pulled the Bitworks published Firefox release which then required a number of RPM packages. I do not use RPM/YUM, I have been relying on ZIP releases mostly because it gives me control over what goes where and my setups are rather simple and I'm trying to keep it that way:

1) g:\os\dll
2) g:\usr\dll
3) g:\usr\bin

...I attempt to keep the duplicate DLLs to a minimum. Basically all non-IBM OS/2 dlls go to \usr\dll.

For whatever reason, I could not extract the needed DLLs out of the RPM packages (using ArchiveView and consistently getting "SYS1092: The handle could not be duplicated during a pipe operation.
" error), and so the minute that failed it was a dead-end...

While I understand the eventual simplicity of relying on RPM/YUM it just seems like we're not quite there yet. So in terms of testing out these beta release it just seems like it would be so much simpler to get a ZIP Firefox release and a matching ZIP release of all the required DLLs.


Paul Smedley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 12
  • -Receive: 55
  • Posts: 478
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2015, 09:49:23 pm »
For whatever reason, I could not extract the needed DLLs out of the RPM packages (using ArchiveView and consistently getting "SYS1092: The handle could not be duplicated during a pipe operation.
" error), and so the minute that failed it was a dead-end...

While I understand the eventual simplicity of relying on RPM/YUM it just seems like we're not quite there yet. So in terms of testing out these beta release it just seems like it would be so much simpler to get a ZIP Firefox release and a matching ZIP release of all the required DLLs.

Most (all?) rpm packages have a zip equivalent in http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/

Cheers,

Paul

Dariusz Piatkowski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2015, 02:29:29 am »
Most (all?) rpm packages have a zip equivalent in http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/

Cheers,

Paul

Paul,

Yeah, the "fly in the ointment" is the missing stuff, so just to show everyone else what I've got, here is the breakdown of what's available:

Sections from the Firefox README:

3. INSTALL 'libc066.dll' and other 'libc*.dll' files into one of the
      directories on your "LIBPATH" (e.g. 'x:\os2\dll').  You can download
      an RPM with these files from:

http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libc-0.6.6-26.oc00.i386.rpm

libc-0_6_6-26_oc00.zip

4. INSTALL 'freetyp6.dll' and 'fntcfg2.dll' into one of the directories
      on your "LIBPATH". You can download RPMs with these files from:
         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/freetype-2.5.5-1.oc00.i386.rpm

freetype-2_5_5-1_oc00.zip

         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/fontconfig-2.8.0-1.oc00.i386.rpm

fontconfig-2_8_0-1_oc00.zip

5. INSTALL 'pthr01.dll' and 'mmap.dll' into one of the directories
      on your "LIBPATH". You can download RPMs with these files from:
         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/pthread-20140814-16.oc00.i386.rpm

pthread-20140814-16_oc00.zip

         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/mmap-0.5-1.oc00.i386.rpm

mmap-0_5-1_oc00.zip

6. INSTALL 'gcc1.dll' and 'stdcpp6.dll' into one of the directories
      on your "LIBPATH". You can download RPMs with these files from:
         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libgcc1-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm

MIA

         http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libstdc++6-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm

MIA

Here is the appropriate section from the GitHub release site:

    png1616.dll from http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libpng-1.6.16-1.oc00.i386.rpm

libpng-1_6_16-1_oc00.zip

    z.dll from http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/zlib-1.2.5-5.oc00.i386.rpm

zlib-1_2_5-5_oc00.zip

    urpo.dll from http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/urpo-20150101-9.oc00.i386.rpm

urpo-20150101-9_oc00.zip

So...in all of the above, it is the libgcc and libstdc++ stuff that's missing and I haven't been able to find it. Yes, others have pointed to the AOO install, etc, etc...but I just wish we would make it a point to do a RPM/YUM an ZIP releases each time.


Dmitriy Kuminov

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 4
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2015, 12:55:53 pm »
Dariusz,

Thank you for the detailed replies.

Well, basically I pulled the Bitworks published Firefox release which then required a number of RPM packages. I do not use RPM/YUM, I have been relying on ZIP releases mostly because it gives me control over what goes where and my setups are rather simple and I'm trying to keep it that way:

1) g:\os\dll
2) g:\usr\dll
3) g:\usr\bin

...I attempt to keep the duplicate DLLs to a minimum. Basically all non-IBM OS/2 dlls go to \usr\dll.
Ok, your intention is clear but know what: RPM does what you just listed for you for free and in a completely unattended (yet 100% predictable) way. It keeps all non-OS/2 things in one place, it rules out the duplicate problems as well as *all* dependencies, including the rather complex cases. (Yes, there are some edge cases where it fails with dependencies but these are rare and may be solved on the vendor's side when done properly — we are working on that). So I strongly recommend you to try YUM/RPM as I think it perfectly fits your scenario.

Quote
For whatever reason, I could not extract the needed DLLs out of the RPM packages (using ArchiveView and consistently getting "SYS1092: The handle could not be duplicated during a pipe operation.
" error), and so the minute that failed it was a dead-end...
This seems that the ArchView installation is broken on your side for whatever reason. I bet that this is because you did something wrong when manually managing your DLLs as I'm 100% sure that on a fresh eCS 2.2 Beta II install it will work soothly (my dev machine is close to the fresh install as much as possible — I isolate all dev work in separate .cmd environments).

Quote
While I understand the eventual simplicity of relying on RPM/YUM it just seems like we're not quite there yet. So in terms of testing out these beta release it just seems like it would be so much simpler to get a ZIP Firefox release and a matching ZIP release of all the required DLLs.
Maintaining such a ZIP is not a trivial task as it might seem and requires additional resources. Given that we invested a lot in RPM already to solve this particular task in a more perfect way, we are not going to do much in ZIP support. I hope you understand. I strongly recommend you to switch to YUM/RPM. We will better fix the RPM problems you discover rather than maintain such ZIPs (again, just because it's a more rational time investment).

Yeah, the "fly in the ointment" is the missing stuff, so just to show everyone else what I've got, here is the breakdown of what's available:

In our last README.OS2, we deliberately replaced all references to ZIP (that we auto-generate from RPMs for your convenience) in favor of RPM archives themselves for a very simple reason. In RPM, a project (application, library, etc) may be divided in several pieces: the application itself, the development files, the debug data etc. with each piece having its own RPM. When we create ZIPs we gather all project RPMs and pack them into a single ZIP. For some projects, the resulting ZIP may be very big. This the case for GCC, for instance: gcc-4_9_2_1-3_oc00.zip is 86 MB in size. It is insane to ask users to download this file if they only need a tiny DLL (gcc1.dll) which is only 30K. So we decided to change all ZIP link to direct RPM links. This assumes that you have a working ArcView installation, of course.

In cases of a single RPM per project, you were able to find the matching ZIP by hand. But in case of GCC you failed because there is simply no ZIP for this individual package we are referring to, you have to download the whole gcc-4_9_2_1-3_oc00.zip thingy. We may consider packing each RPM into a separate ZIP eventually but this is to be decided yet.
CPO of bww bitwise works GmbH

Joop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 50
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2015, 06:26:12 pm »
Still very disappointed in the fact that this version also doesn't have focus and can't handle more then 3 pdf's or so.

Focus
If you are on a site and you want to an other site, then choosing so won't give you that site but something which is on the old site. So I'm on a site, I go to my list of sites, choose one, but I don't get that site but something what was accidental below my choice on the old site. Still not fixed.

3 downloads or pdf
If you download more then 3 things (it happened when I was reading pdf info and instruction stuff) then FF shows you the fast way of closing a program. Still not fixed.

Sorry, I had hoped for improvement. Seems to be very difficult to fix those basic things.
Its very annoying..

Joop

Martin Iturbide

  • OS2World NewsMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 450
  • -Receive: 91
  • Posts: 2570
  • Your Friend Wil Declares...
    • View Profile
    • Martin's Personal Blog
Re: Firefox Developer Edition 24.8.1b4
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2015, 01:05:39 am »
Hi Joop.

Did you reported those issues on the "ticket system" on the project's github?
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/issues

I also experimented the one when you tried to download something and Firefox just closes very fast.

Regards
Martin Iturbide
OS2World NewsMaster
... just share the dream.