updated mozsupport package

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
I have updated the mozsupport package, hopefully including all of the
DLLs needed for Firefox (only tested with Dave's current SeaMonkey
build, which needs fewer).

http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html
http://os2news.warpstock.org/mozsupport-2016-02-27.zip

Feedback welcome.  :)
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Andreas Kohl-6
Steve Wendt schrieb:
> I have updated the mozsupport package, hopefully including all of the
> DLLs needed for Firefox (only tested with Dave's current SeaMonkey
> build, which needs fewer).
>
> http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html
> http://os2news.warpstock.org/mozsupport-2016-02-27.zip
>
> Feedback welcome.  :)

Why not simply add also the required libc and gcc stuff?
gcc1.dll
gcc473.dll
libc065.dll
libc066.dll
stdcpp6.dll
Or better provide a separate file without WarpIn requirement.


--
Andreas
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Doug Bissett-2
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:31:36 UTC, Andreas Kohl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steve Wendt schrieb:
> > I have updated the mozsupport package, hopefully including all of the
> > DLLs needed for Firefox (only tested with Dave's current SeaMonkey
> > build, which needs fewer).
> >
> > http://os2news.warpstock.org/Warpzilla.html
> > http://os2news.warpstock.org/mozsupport-2016-02-27.zip
> >
> > Feedback welcome.  :)
>
> Why not simply add also the required libc and gcc stuff?
> gcc1.dll
> gcc473.dll
> libc065.dll
> libc066.dll
> stdcpp6.dll
> Or better provide a separate file without WarpIn requirement.
>
>
> --
> Andreas

None of that requires WarpIn, but your list is far from complete.
Please don't distribute packages that are not complete. You need GCC1
plus ALL of the forwarders, and LIBC066 plus ALL of the forwarders.
This stuff is hard enough to sort out, without supplying incomplete
packages, which can leave a user with down level versions, when they
think they have everything that they need. It may not affect the
Mozilla stuff (in this case), but other things are going to have
problems, eventually.

I will point out, that it took me about 2 minutes (plus download time)
to get all of this right, using the Arca Noae Package Manager to run
YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things, but it is far
better than spending days trying to figure it out for yourself. I know
that my time can be used for better things.

--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Andreas Kohl-6
On 02/28/2016 05:31 AM, Andreas Kohl wrote:

> Why not simply add also the required libc and gcc stuff?

Those are required by many things, and already nicely packaged.  Someone
else can provide a ZIP archive of that if they like, but I choose not to.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Doug Bissett-2
On 02/28/2016 09:21 AM, Doug Bissett wrote:

> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  until/unless you can run
"yum install firefox seamonkey thunderbird" the current process they are
using is broken.  Even once that works, it would still be nice to have a
ZIP/WPI version that is statically linked.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Dave Yeo-3
On 02/28/16 11:48 AM, Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 09:21 AM, Doug Bissett wrote:
>
>> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  until/unless you can run
> "yum install firefox seamonkey thunderbird" the current process they are
> using is broken.  Even once that works, it would still be nice to have a
> ZIP/WPI version that is statically linked.

Well their plan does involve building RPM packages of FF, SM and TB, not
sure if using my binaries or building them themselves. They also plan on
removing MOZILLA_HOME and replacing it with %HOME% as that is how Redhat
does it and they seem to have forgotten that this is _not_ Linux.
Really they should have a virtual Mozilla package that installs all the
prerequisites but since Redhat doesn't do that...
I wouldn't mind building static linked packages, but it is not as simple
as it should be and there should also be some discussion on which
libraries should be static and which dynamic.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Dave Yeo-3
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
On 02/28/16 11:48 AM, Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 09:21 AM, Doug Bissett wrote:
>
>> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  until/unless you can run
> "yum install firefox seamonkey thunderbird" the current process they are
> using is broken.  Even once that works, it would still be nice to have a
> ZIP/WPI version that is statically linked.

Well their plan does involve building RPM packages of FF, SM and TB, not
sure if using my binaries or building them themselves. They also plan on
removing MOZILLA_HOME and replacing it with %HOME% as that is how Redhat
does it and they seem to have forgotten that this is _not_ Linux.
Really they should have a virtual Mozilla package that installs all the
prerequisites but since Redhat doesn't do that...
I wouldn't mind building static linked packages, but it is not as simple
as it should be and there should also be some discussion on which
libraries should be static and which dynamic.
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Andreas Kohl-6
In reply to this post by Doug Bissett-2
Doug Bissett schrieb:
> None of that requires WarpIn, but your list is far from complete.

So which package (non-warpin) contains gcc1.dll and its forwarders,
please? I know only this big gcc zip files from netlabs.

> Please don't distribute packages that are not complete. You need GCC1
> plus ALL of the forwarders, and LIBC066 plus ALL of the forwarders.

I'm not a distributor, what you're talking about?

> This stuff is hard enough to sort out, without supplying incomplete
> packages, which can leave a user with down level versions, when they
> think they have everything that they need. It may not affect the
> Mozilla stuff (in this case), but other things are going to have
> problems, eventually.
>
> I will point out, that it took me about 2 minutes (plus download time)
> to get all of this right, using the Arca Noae Package Manager to run
> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things, but it is far
> better than spending days trying to figure it out for yourself.

But ANPM requires WarpIn and some other small libraries. How it fits to
the first sentence? I look from another perspective not a full-armoured
super-user or developer system but a clean network ready installation
done the CID way.

Sorry, just my thoughts.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Doug Bissett-2
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:52:30 UTC, Andreas Kohl <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Doug Bissett schrieb:
> > None of that requires WarpIn, but your list is far from complete.
>
> So which package (non-warpin) contains gcc1.dll and its forwarders,
> please? I know only this big gcc zip files from netlabs.

GCC1 is in:

> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libgcc1-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm

The forwarders are in:

> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/i386/libgcc-fwd-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm

I don't know, nor do I care, if they buit ZIP files for them. You can
unpackage the rpm files with 7Z. You can also use the eComStation
Archive manager program, as long as you have that installed, with all
of the required support. What you do with the extracted files, is
probably 100% guesswork.

> > Please don't distribute packages that are not complete. You need GCC1
> > plus ALL of the forwarders, and LIBC066 plus ALL of the forwarders.
>
> I'm not a distributor, what you're talking about?

My suggestion is to Steve.

> > This stuff is hard enough to sort out, without supplying incomplete
> > packages, which can leave a user with down level versions, when they
> > think they have everything that they need. It may not affect the
> > Mozilla stuff (in this case), but other things are going to have
> > problems, eventually.
> >
> > I will point out, that it took me about 2 minutes (plus download time)
> > to get all of this right, using the Arca Noae Package Manager to run
> > YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things, but it is far
> > better than spending days trying to figure it out for yourself.
>
> But ANPM requires WarpIn and some other small libraries. How it fits to
> the first sentence? I look from another perspective not a full-armoured
> super-user or developer system but a clean network ready installation
> done the CID way.
>
> Sorry, just my thoughts.
>
> Andreas

I pity you. You will spend half your life trying to sort it out by
yourself, but so be it, if that is what you want. Personally, I will
bite the bullet, and use the Arca noae Package Manager to do the
management. It isn't likely to get any easier.

The other options are to stop updating, or quit using the ported
programs.

--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Silvan Scherrer-2
In reply to this post by Dave Yeo-3
On 28.02.16 21:13, Dave Yeo wrote:

> On 02/28/16 11:48 AM, Steve Wendt wrote:
>> On 02/28/2016 09:21 AM, Doug Bissett wrote:
>>
>>> YUM. It is definitely a terrible way to do things
>>
>> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: until/unless you can run
>> "yum install firefox seamonkey thunderbird" the current process they are
>> using is broken. Even once that works, it would still be nice to have a
>> ZIP/WPI version that is statically linked.
>
> Well their plan does involve building RPM packages of FF, SM and TB, not
> sure if using my binaries or building them themselves. They also plan on
> removing MOZILLA_HOME and replacing it with %HOME% as that is how Redhat
> does it and they seem to have forgotten that this is _not_ Linux.

I really wonder where you got that from. Yes there is a ticket, but we
are not planning to remove any functionality. We might enhance it, that
if no MOZILLA_HOME is present we use %HOME%. But not even this is certain.

Another not true thinggy is, that our builds need iconv2.dll. Our builds
use the libc iconv engine in intl8.dll. There is another gettext version
on hobbes which iirc uses/needs iconv2.dll. So for the maintainers of
the mozzsupport package, please be aware of that.

regards
Silvan
CTO at bww bitwise works GmbH

> Really they should have a virtual Mozilla package that installs all the
> prerequisites but since Redhat doesn't do that...
> I wouldn't mind building static linked packages, but it is not as simple
> as it should be and there should also be some discussion on which
> libraries should be static and which dynamic.
> Dave

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Ray Davison
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
Steve Wendt wrote:
>
> Those are required by many things, and already nicely packaged.  Someone
> else can provide a ZIP archive of that if they like, but I choose not to.
>
I started with Netscape, then Mozilla under OS/2.  When sites started
having problems with the OS/2 versions I started using Mostly Win.  The
Win versions are a single ZIP.  It is just unzip alongside the previous,
create a run object, and run.  Then delete the previous when you feel
like it.  The user does not need to understand how "build" each version.
  Is there a reason that system is impossible or undesirable for eCS?

TY
Ray


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Andreas Kohl-6
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
On 28.02.16 20.44, Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 05:31 AM, Andreas Kohl wrote:
>
>> Why not simply add also the required libc and gcc stuff?
>
> Those are required by many things, and already nicely packaged.  Someone
> else can provide a ZIP archive of that if they like, but I choose not to.

Ok, but please correct the included old glib2 stuff. I know it's hard to
choose which package to download from netlabs http repo, because there
are no file dates for the zip files shown.

Take better this one:
<http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/glib2-2_25_15-5_oc00.zip>

mmap and pthr01 are also not the latest, but perhaps for some reason?

--
Andreas
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Silvan Scherrer-2
On 2/29/2016 2:40 AM, Silvan Scherrer wrote:

> if no MOZILLA_HOME is present we use %HOME%

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  :)

> Another not true thinggy is, that our builds need iconv2.dll. Our builds
> use the libc iconv engine in intl8.dll. There is another gettext version
> on hobbes which iirc uses/needs iconv2.dll. So for the maintainers of
> the mozzsupport package, please be aware of that.

I used the intl8.dll from netlabs; I was wondering where the reference
to iconv2.dll came from.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Andreas Kohl-6
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
On 29.02.16 18.01, Ray Davison wrote:

> Steve Wendt wrote:
>>
>> Those are required by many things, and already nicely packaged.  Someone
>> else can provide a ZIP archive of that if they like, but I choose not to.
>>
> I started with Netscape, then Mozilla under OS/2.  When sites started
> having problems with the OS/2 versions I started using Mostly Win.  The
> Win versions are a single ZIP.  It is just unzip alongside the previous,
> create a run object, and run.  Then delete the previous when you feel
> like it.  The user does not need to understand how "build" each version.
>   Is there a reason that system is impossible or undesirable for eCS?

It could be the same simple process with OS/2 systems. It only needs all
required dll files shipped (or linked statically) with the package and
some minor adjustments for fontconfig (looking for config file in
working directory, using another "fonts" directory for fonts and caching
per default). If somebody wants to use different settings it could be
done by environment variables - do not ask!

--
Andreas

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Andreas Kohl-6
On 2/29/2016 10:59 AM, Andreas Kohl wrote:

> Ok, but please correct the included old glib2 stuff. I know it's hard to
> choose which package to download from netlabs http repo, because there
> are no file dates for the zip files shown.
>
> Take better this one:
> <http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/glib2-2_25_15-5_oc00.zip>

Are you saying that version 2.25 is preferable to version 2.33?

> mmap and pthr01 are also not the latest, but perhaps for some reason?

I thought I had the newest ones from the referenced folder, but if you
know something different, please elaborate.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Andreas Kohl-6
Am 29.02.16 um 20.16 schrieb Steve Wendt:
> Are you saying that version 2.25 is preferable to version 2.33?

At this point the README.OS2 that comes with latest builds is correct:

-------------------------------------------------- from line 100 -------

5. INSTALL 'cairo2.dll', 'pixman10.dll', 'pango100.dll', 'glib2.dll',
'gobj2.dll','gmod2.dll', 'urpo.dll' into one of the directories
       on your "LIBPATH". You can download RPMs with these files from:
          http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/cairo-1_12_0-1_oc00.zip
          http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/pixman-0_32_8-2_oc00.zip
          http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/pango-1_28_4-1_oc00.zip
          http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/glib2-2_25_15-5_oc00.zip
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> mmap and pthr01 are also not the latest, but perhaps for some reason?
>
> I thought I had the newest ones from the referenced folder, but if you
> know something different, please elaborate.

The same file suggests:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/pthread-20150408-19_oc00.zip
which is even older than the included, the latest has a date from 2015-12-29
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/mmap-0_5-1_oc00.zip
Here I'm not sure, because the file I use is only 6 bytes bigger and a
couple of hours younger.

--
Andreas

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
On 02/29/16 11:44 am, Andreas Kohl wrote:

>> Are you saying that version 2.25 is preferable to version 2.33?
>
> At this point the README.OS2 that comes with latest builds is correct

In short - yes.  Apparently version 2.25 is considered more worthy of
updating than version 2.33.

>>> mmap and pthr01 are also not the latest, but perhaps for some reason?
>>
>> I thought I had the newest ones from the referenced folder, but if you
>> know something different, please elaborate.
>
> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/pthread-20150408-19_oc00.zip
> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/mmap-0_5-1_oc00.zip

I'm already using the DLLs from those.

In any case, I've updated the mozsupport package with the newer build /
older version of glib2 DLLs; other than having additional dependencies
(gthr2 and intl8), I don't know what's different, but might as well have
the freshest set of bugs(!).

Thanks for your input!

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Dave Yeo-3
On 02/29/16 09:03 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:
> In any case, I've updated the mozsupport package with the newer build /
> older version of glib2 DLLs; other than having additional dependencies
> (gthr2 and intl8), I don't know what's different, but might as well have
> the freshest set of bugs(!).

On your Warpzilla page, the fontconfig link points to
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/freetype-2_6_3-1_oc00.zip
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Steve Wendt
On 02/29/2016 09:12 PM, Dave Yeo wrote:

> On your Warpzilla page, the fontconfig link points to
> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/freetype-2_6_3-1_oc00.zip

I believe I fixed that yesterday?

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: updated mozsupport package

Dave Yeo-3
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
On 02/29/16 09:03 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:
> In any case, I've updated the mozsupport package with the newer build /
> older version of glib2 DLLs; other than having additional dependencies
> (gthr2 and intl8), I don't know what's different, but might as well have
> the freshest set of bugs(!).

On your Warpzilla page, the fontconfig link points to
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/zip/freetype-2_6_3-1_oc00.zip
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
12