Re: loading xul.dll success

[os24u]

** Reply to note from [hidden email] Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +0000
>  
> Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:09:37 -0800 From: Steve Wendt

> How old is your "extra mozilla dll zip"? Each successive version has  added additional
> requirements. The mozsupport package I put together  was last updated in October:
> http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html

> Try running PMDLL on xul.dll. And as Steve mentioned, sometimes it is a  newer version
> of a DLL needed, eg the SM I built yesterday needs a libc  that hasn't been released.
> Also check popuplog.os2. Dave

 Had pmdll on xul.dll, said problem was upstream.

 Solution was found. Z.dll was required. There are 2 different files with that name.
Glinks browser (loaded most of the time) has one, and Qupzilla and later Firefox use
another. Restricted libpath so each app uses it's own z.dll.
 
 Now that 31.8 version is functioning, each time it starts a small window pops up
checking for addon compatibility. Once Firefox is satisfied it is compatible then loads.
The addon is ColorfulTabs which I have used on every version, and using the same profile
between FF 10 and 31.

 FF 31 will only be used for url's that do not load on other browsers. If I disable the
Tabs addon in 31 will that also be disabled when using FF 10? If so is there a method to
have 31 not use addons at all without messing up the profile?

        Cal


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Steve Wendt]

On 1/22/2018 2:58 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> FF 31 will only be used for url's that do not load on other browsers.
> If I disable the Tabs addon in 31 will that also be disabled when
> using FF 10? If so is there a method to have 31 not use addons at all
> without messing up the profile?

Sharing a profile between such disparate versions will probably end in
tears, but if you want to disable addons in one version without
affecting the other, you could try starting it with -safe-mode.
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Dave Yeo-3]

On 01/22/18 02:58 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> ** Reply to note from [hidden email] Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +0000
>>
>> Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:09:37 -0800 From: Steve Wendt
>> How old is your "extra mozilla dll zip"? Each successive version has  added additional
>> requirements. The mozsupport package I put together  was last updated in October:
>> http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html
>> Try running PMDLL on xul.dll. And as Steve mentioned, sometimes it is a  newer version
>> of a DLL needed, eg the SM I built yesterday needs a libc  that hasn't been released.
>> Also check popuplog.os2. Dave
>  Had pmdll on xul.dll, said problem was upstream.
>
>  Solution was found. Z.dll was required. There are 2 different files with that name.
> Glinks browser (loaded most of the time) has one, and Qupzilla and later Firefox use
> another. Restricted libpath so each app uses it's own z.dll.

It's a common problem. Glinks is built with EMX, which exports functions
slightly differently then kLIBC, which is what is used for Mozilla. As
you found, restricted LIBPATH.

>
>  Now that 31.8 version is functioning, each time it starts a small window pops up
> checking for addon compatibility. Once Firefox is satisfied it is compatible then loads.
> The addon is ColorfulTabs which I have used on every version, and using the same profile
> between FF 10 and 31.
>
>  FF 31 will only be used for url's that do not load on other browsers. If I disable the
> Tabs addon in 31 will that also be disabled when using FF 10? If so is there a method to
> have 31 not use addons at all without messing up the profile?

Downgrading the browser isn't really supported by Mozilla, usually works
but not always as they don't care or test.
Really if you need something to load URL's that don;t load with old
versions, the newer the better.
Yes, if you disable an add-on with 31, it'll be disabled in all versions
and everytime you load the newer version, it'll do the add-ons check.
There's probably a preference to disable checking compatibility, but I
can't find it looking quickly.
You could use different profiles for 10 and 31. You'd need program
objects for both with the -p parameter pointing at the correct profile
along with -no-remote if you want to run both at once and of course,
isolating the LIBPATHS
Dave

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Steve Wendt]

On 1/22/2018 3:50 PM, Dave Yeo wrote:

> There's probably a preference to disable checking compatibility

It changed a few times in different versions, and of course it can
result in things breaking.  Google will help you find how to do it, if
you really want that.

> You could use different profiles for 10 and 31.

This is the better option, if you really want to keep both versions
running (10 is getting quite old?).
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2

[Andreas Kohl-6]

Dave Yeo schrieb:
> Downgrading the browser isn't really supported by Mozilla, usually works
> but not always as they don't care or test.
But it's the only workaround to enable native text encodings for reading
mail and news to some degree.
> Really if you need something to load URL's that don;t load with old
> versions, the newer the better.
Only in the area of HTML5. FTP still suffers from long standing bugs.
Latest OS/2 builds are only useable under a Russian OS/2 system.
> Yes, if you disable an add-on with 31, it'll be disabled in all versions
> and everytime you load the newer version, it'll do the add-ons check.
> There's probably a preference to disable checking compatibility, but I
> can't find it looking quickly.
For the average user it can be annoying by using localisation add-ons.
Customised builds with an applied set of add-ons can avoid some of the
limitations of user-profile hosted extensions.
> You could use different profiles for 10 and 31. You'd need program
> objects for both with the -p parameter pointing at the correct profile
> along with -no-remote if you want to run both at once and of course,
> isolating the LIBPATHS
That's also a matter of timing. Even with separate profiles for
different Mozilla application versions and the recommended settings
libc/libcx can cause stack corruption and memory leaks resulting in
"XPCOM cannot..." message box. Unfortunately only a reboot can heal in
this situation.

--
Andreas
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2