Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from the
original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_ 38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found
nowadays?
--
Am 31.05.16 um 12.37 schrieb A.D. Fundum:
Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from the
original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_ 38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
--
No it's not an error. Almost all DLLs with the exception of the very few
DLLs in Firefoxes directory will now be installable via YUM/RPM. You
just need to use it.
As you have already seen all DLLs where this was possible have been
removed from the Firefox install package.
The reason that MOZALLOC.DLL / MOZSQLT3.DLL / XUL.DLL is still in there
is because these are not yet "unified" between Firefox and Thunderbird
(and Seamonkey).
Once that is done they will also go away and be installable via YUM/RPM.
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe and cpio.exe.
(there is also a zip subdirectory with zips but I think they are no
longer updated).
1) you will have to run a DLL listing tool like chk4dlls against
firefox.exe, mozalloc.dll, mozsqlt3.dll and xul.dll (with RECURSIVE dependency listing) in order to see all DLLs which are directly or
indirectly loaded from firefox.exe. You will then need to reduce these
lists to the DLLs that are not standard DLLs as part of the OS.
2) You will have to search in those rpms in order to gather all the DLLs found in 1).
Finally, the above still does not give a 100% guarantee that you have
all DLLs that you need. For example, the exceptq.dll (which is used to
report exception info on a trap) is loaded during RUNTIME, that is it
will not show up in the dependency tree.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies to additional DLLs ...
(For exceptq this is not an issue as it is not mandatory for the correct operation of firefox and therefore firefox will still run if it does not exist.)
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Am 31.05.16 um 12.37 schrieb A.D. Fundum:
Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from theNo it's not an error. Almost all DLLs with the exception of the very few
original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_
38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found
nowadays?
--
DLLs in Firefoxes directory will now be installable via YUM/RPM. You
just need to use it.
As you have already seen all DLLs where this was possible have been
removed from the Firefox install package.
The reason that MOZALLOC.DLL / MOZSQLT3.DLL / XUL.DLL is still in there
is because these are not yet "unified" between Firefox and Thunderbird
(and Seamonkey).
Once that is done they will also go away and be installable via YUM/RPM.
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe and cpio.exe.
(there is also a zip subdirectory with zips but I think they are no
longer updated).
1) you will have to run a DLL listing tool like chk4dlls against
firefox.exe, mozalloc.dll, mozsqlt3.dll and xul.dll (with RECURSIVE dependency listing) in order to see all DLLs which are directly or
indirectly loaded from firefox.exe. You will then need to reduce these
lists to the DLLs that are not standard DLLs as part of the OS.
2) You will have to search in those rpms in order to gather all the DLLs found in 1).
Finally, the above still does not give a 100% guarantee that you have
all DLLs that you need. For example, the exceptq.dll (which is used to
report exception info on a trap) is loaded during RUNTIME, that is it
will not show up in the dependency tree.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies to additional DLLs ...
(For exceptq this is not an issue as it is not mandatory for the correct operation of firefox and therefore firefox will still run if it does not exist.)
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:51:44 UTC, Lars Erdmann <lars.erdmann@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 31.05.16 um 12.37 schrieb A.D. Fundum:
Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from the
original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_ 38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
--
No it's not an error. Almost all DLLs with the exception of the very few DLLs in Firefoxes directory will now be installable via YUM/RPM. You
just need to use it.
As you have already seen all DLLs where this was possible have been
removed from the Firefox install package.
The reason that MOZALLOC.DLL / MOZSQLT3.DLL / XUL.DLL is still in there
is because these are not yet "unified" between Firefox and Thunderbird
(and Seamonkey).
Once that is done they will also go away and be installable via YUM/RPM.
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe and cpio.exe.
(there is also a zip subdirectory with zips but I think they are no
longer updated).
1) you will have to run a DLL listing tool like chk4dlls against firefox.exe, mozalloc.dll, mozsqlt3.dll and xul.dll (with RECURSIVE dependency listing) in order to see all DLLs which are directly or indirectly loaded from firefox.exe. You will then need to reduce these lists to the DLLs that are not standard DLLs as part of the OS.
2) You will have to search in those rpms in order to gather all the DLLs found in 1).
Finally, the above still does not give a 100% guarantee that you have
all DLLs that you need. For example, the exceptq.dll (which is used to report exception info on a trap) is loaded during RUNTIME, that is it
will not show up in the dependency tree.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies to additional DLLs ...
(For exceptq this is not an issue as it is not mandatory for the correct operation of firefox and therefore firefox will still run if it does not exist.)
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Actually he is not on his own. There are a number of us that are
maintaining certified systems where we CAN NOT install RPM/YUM and
maintain the certification (we can just get by with the esr versions
of firefox because firefox was included in the original
certification).
I assume the developers have to have working versions of the DLLs to
test and since they produce the necessary exceptq zip it should not be
ant greater effort to produce a DLL zip (in fact I think it would be
easier than producing all the individual RPMs).
ivan
On Tue, 31 May 2016 14:54:07 UTC, "ivan" <ivanjt@free.fr> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:51:44 UTC, Lars Erdmann <lars.erdmann@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 31.05.16 um 12.37 schrieb A.D. Fundum:
Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from theNo it's not an error. Almost all DLLs with the exception of the very few >>> DLLs in Firefoxes directory will now be installable via YUM/RPM. You
original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_ >>>> 38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found
nowadays?
--
just need to use it.
As you have already seen all DLLs where this was possible have been
removed from the Firefox install package.
The reason that MOZALLOC.DLL / MOZSQLT3.DLL / XUL.DLL is still in there
is because these are not yet "unified" between Firefox and Thunderbird
(and Seamonkey).
Once that is done they will also go away and be installable via YUM/RPM. >>>
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe and cpio.exe.
(there is also a zip subdirectory with zips but I think they are no
longer updated).
1) you will have to run a DLL listing tool like chk4dlls against
firefox.exe, mozalloc.dll, mozsqlt3.dll and xul.dll (with RECURSIVE
dependency listing) in order to see all DLLs which are directly or
indirectly loaded from firefox.exe. You will then need to reduce these
lists to the DLLs that are not standard DLLs as part of the OS.
2) You will have to search in those rpms in order to gather all the DLLs >>> found in 1).
Finally, the above still does not give a 100% guarantee that you have
all DLLs that you need. For example, the exceptq.dll (which is used to
report exception info on a trap) is loaded during RUNTIME, that is it
will not show up in the dependency tree.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies to
additional DLLs ...
(For exceptq this is not an issue as it is not mandatory for the correct >>> operation of firefox and therefore firefox will still run if it does not >>> exist.)
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Actually he is not on his own. There are a number of us that are
maintaining certified systems where we CAN NOT install RPM/YUM and
maintain the certification (we can just get by with the esr versions
of firefox because firefox was included in the original
certification).
I'm afraid, that those who wish/need to do it without RPM/YUM, are on
their own. Even the developers have decided that it is way too much
work to do it that way. Don't get me wrong, I don't like RPM/YUM, at
all. There has got to be a better way, but RPM/YUM (especially with
the Arca Noae Package Manager to run it), is, by far, the best
available method.
I see two options:
1) install a system with the Arca Noae Package Manager (RPM/YUM), and
keep it up to date. Then, extract whatever you need from that, ZIP it
up, and distribute it as required. Note that RPM/YUM distributes
things other than DLLs, so you may want to investigate that too.
2) Get Arca Noae Package Manager (RPM/YUM) added to the certification.
You will probably need that in the future, even if you can still work
around it now ("work" being the operative word).
There is actually a third option: Stop updating (which is probably not
a smart idea).
I assume the developers have to have working versions of the DLLs to
test and since they produce the necessary exceptq zip it should not be
ant greater effort to produce a DLL zip (in fact I think it would be
easier than producing all the individual RPMs).
Exceptq is from a different source, and it is already an RPM package.
The user part of Exceptq is available at HOBBES as a WarpIn package,
if you prefer, but that will probably never be updated since it is now managed by RPM/YUM.
ivan
FWIW, I do understand the problems of certified software.
Unfortunately, that stuff is usually controlled by consultants. and
managers, who are terrified that something will go wrong, and don't understand the consequences of not changing, so they don't want
anything to change without going through a really stupid set of tests,
that usually don't prove anything. The real danger lies in not keeping
things up to date, no matter how it is done.
Currently, I suggest working with option 1, if you insist on not using RPM/YUM on each system. At least you should have everything that you
need, and it will all be in one place.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:51:44 UTC, Lars Erdmann <lars.erdmann@arcor.de>
wrote:
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Actually he is not on his own. There are a number of us that are
maintaining certified systems where we CAN NOT install RPM/YUM and
maintain the certification (we can just get by with the esr versions
of firefox because firefox was included in the original
certification).
I assume the developers have to have working versions of the DLLs to
test and since they produce the necessary exceptq zip it should not be
ant greater effort to produce a DLL zip (in fact I think it would be
easier than producing all the individual RPMs).
ivan
I see two options
The other option is to build a statically linked Firefox.
Get Arca Noae Package Manager (RPM/YUM) added to the
certification.
For ANPM I don't think it can be executed in a command line mode.
However, if you have that need I think it would be worth asking ArcaNoae
to add this to ANPM. Since ArcaNoae also provides the OS to companies,
they potentially have a vital interest in solving this problem.
Ok, I see the point.
"they have working versions of the DLLs": I guess the problem is to
track the dependencies. I am no expert but I guess that if you port some library that there is dependency info coming with the complete package
so that it is suitable to be installed via RPM but not any other way.
They just don't have the time to continously "write down and update" the dependency tree so that they would know what overall set of DLLs is needed.
Would it be possible for you to have ANPM or YUM/RPM added to your certification (as Doug suggested) and set up a regular update via
YUM/RPM on all the affected machines ?
For ANPM I don't think it can be executed in a command line mode.
However, if you have that need I think it would be worth asking ArcaNoae
to add this to ANPM. Since ArcaNoae also provides the OS to companies,
they potentially have a vital interest in solving this problem.
Lars
Am 31.05.16 um 16.54 schrieb ivan:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:51:44 UTC, Lars Erdmann <lars.erdmann@arcor.de> wrote:
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Actually he is not on his own. There are a number of us that are maintaining certified systems where we CAN NOT install RPM/YUM and
maintain the certification (we can just get by with the esr versions
of firefox because firefox was included in the original
certification).
I assume the developers have to have working versions of the DLLs to
test and since they produce the necessary exceptq zip it should not be
ant greater effort to produce a DLL zip (in fact I think it would be
easier than producing all the individual RPMs).
ivan
The thing I don't understand is why the change from doing it the OS/2
way to trying to emulate the Linux way with the least favoured Linux
package manager out there.
Maybe I'm just getting too old but we didn't have this sort of thing
back in the days of OS/2 2.1.
On Tue, 31 May 2016 14:54:07 UTC, "ivan" <ivanjt@free.fr> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:51:44 UTC, Lars Erdmann <lars.erdmann@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 31.05.16 um 12.37 schrieb A.D. Fundum:
Several DLL files, e.g. FF's own NSPR4.DLL, are missing from the original archive:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2/releases/download/FIREFOX_ 38_8_0esr_RELEASE_OS2_Beta_7/firefox-38.8.0.en-US.os2.zip
Probably an error. If not, then where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
--
No it's not an error. Almost all DLLs with the exception of the very few DLLs in Firefoxes directory will now be installable via YUM/RPM. You
just need to use it.
As you have already seen all DLLs where this was possible have been removed from the Firefox install package.
The reason that MOZALLOC.DLL / MOZSQLT3.DLL / XUL.DLL is still in there is because these are not yet "unified" between Firefox and Thunderbird (and Seamonkey).
Once that is done they will also go away and be installable via YUM/RPM.
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe and cpio.exe.
(there is also a zip subdirectory with zips but I think they are no longer updated).
1) you will have to run a DLL listing tool like chk4dlls against firefox.exe, mozalloc.dll, mozsqlt3.dll and xul.dll (with RECURSIVE dependency listing) in order to see all DLLs which are directly or indirectly loaded from firefox.exe. You will then need to reduce these lists to the DLLs that are not standard DLLs as part of the OS.
2) You will have to search in those rpms in order to gather all the DLLs found in 1).
Finally, the above still does not give a 100% guarantee that you have
all DLLs that you need. For example, the exceptq.dll (which is used to report exception info on a trap) is loaded during RUNTIME, that is it will not show up in the dependency tree.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies to additional DLLs ...
(For exceptq this is not an issue as it is not mandatory for the correct operation of firefox and therefore firefox will still run if it does not exist.)
Have fun. Wish you all the best. You are on your own.
Lars
Actually he is not on his own. There are a number of us that are maintaining certified systems where we CAN NOT install RPM/YUM and
maintain the certification (we can just get by with the esr versions
of firefox because firefox was included in the original
certification).
I'm afraid, that those who wish/need to do it without RPM/YUM, are on
their own. Even the developers have decided that it is way too much
work to do it that way. Don't get me wrong, I don't like RPM/YUM, at
all. There has got to be a better way, but RPM/YUM (especially with
the Arca Noae Package Manager to run it), is, by far, the best
available method.
I see two options:
1) install a system with the Arca Noae Package Manager (RPM/YUM), and
keep it up to date. Then, extract whatever you need from that, ZIP it
up, and distribute it as required. Note that RPM/YUM distributes
things other than DLLs, so you may want to investigate that too.
2) Get Arca Noae Package Manager (RPM/YUM) added to the certification.
You will probably need that in the future, even if you can still work
around it now ("work" being the operative word).
There is actually a third option: Stop updating (which is probably not
a smart idea).
I assume the developers have to have working versions of the DLLs to
test and since they produce the necessary exceptq zip it should not be
ant greater effort to produce a DLL zip (in fact I think it would be
easier than producing all the individual RPMs).
Exceptq is from a different source, and it is already an RPM package.
The user part of Exceptq is available at HOBBES as a WarpIn package,
if you prefer, but that will probably never be updated since it is now managed by RPM/YUM.
ivan
FWIW, I do understand the problems of certified software.
Unfortunately, that stuff is usually controlled by consultants. and
managers, who are terrified that something will go wrong, and don't understand the consequences of not changing, so they don't want
anything to change without going through a really stupid set of tests,
that usually don't prove anything. The real danger lies in not keeping
things up to date, no matter how it is done.
Currently, I suggest working with option 1, if you insist on not using RPM/YUM on each system. At least you should have everything that you
need, and it will all be in one place.
Out of curiosity I had a look at the same version of firefox on a
friends win7 box and guess what, it has all the DLLs in the firefox
directory - strange that the OS/2 version is the only one out of step.
Your option 1 is more or less what we have done and now have it setup
on our test box.
The thing I don't understand is why the change from doing it the OS/2
way to trying to emulate the Linux way with the least favoured Linux
package manager out there.
Maybe I'm just getting too old but we didn't have this sort of thing
back in the days of OS/2 2.1.
we generally have lots of memory installed.
Maybe I'm just getting too old but we didn't have
this sort of thing back in the days of OS/2 2.1.
If you want to:
http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
and cpio.exe.
And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies
to additional DLLs ...
I'm not claiming that developers may savely assume the availability of at least a few GBs. My worst case is probably 288 MB, so I'm confirming that
in this case the general rule also is the only rule. With 288 MB it works, but that's about it. The next working step in Hardware Land will be a
Pentium 4, which generally should support "lots of memory" anyway.
In a way memory-related "optimizations" seem to be aimed at a Pentium III with less than "lots of memory", but more than 288 MB. At the moment FF/SM doesn't work with Pentium IIIs, so IRL it doesn't make sense indeed.
> If you want to:
> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
> contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
> and cpio.exe.
Thank you, that was pretty clear 2.0!
According to the text and names of files FF for OS/2 is a product for OS/2, but OS/2 nor eCS 1.x ships with e.g. RPM2CPIO.EXE.
So, FTR: where can one find those EXEs? IRL the documentation assumes the use of RPM, i.e. eCS 2.x. What are recommended (eCS 2.x-) directories to install those OS components?
> And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies
> to additional DLLs ...
I still don't get it why "unification" of some compenents of a single brand of products was judged to be far more important than the introduction of excessive, rather extreme (e.g. compared with FF for Windows) and avoidable requirements. An engineer's choice?
FWIW, in my case FF hardly justifies any extraordinary efforts. I'm using
SM is production. The latest version of SM still included all expected
DLLs, without surprises. So it's quite unlikely that I'll install RPM just because FF requires it, unless the (AFAICT) OS-component RPM is available
as an drop-in update for eCS 1.x too (so including the use of the same directories, and so on). Otherwise I'd really, really like to avoid using software, which requires software, which requires software, which requires software, which requires software. As such I'm not using nor liking Unix.
> If you want to:
> http://rpm.netlabs.org/release/00/i386/
> contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
> and cpio.exe.
Thank you, that was pretty clear 2.0!
According to the text and names of files FF for OS/2 is a product for OS/2, but OS/2 nor eCS 1.x ships with e.g. RPM2CPIO.EXE.
So, FTR: where can one find those EXEs? IRL the documentation assumes the use of RPM, i.e. eCS 2.x. What are recommended (eCS 2.x-) directories to install those OS components?
> And the DLLs loaded during runtime can themselves have dependencies
> to additional DLLs ...
I still don't get it why "unification" of some compenents of a single brand of products was judged to be far more important than the introduction of excessive, rather extreme (e.g. compared with FF for Windows) and avoidable requirements. An engineer's choice?
FWIW, in my case FF hardly justifies any extraordinary efforts. I'm using
SM is production. The latest version of SM still included all expected
DLLs, without surprises. So it's quite unlikely that I'll install RPM just because FF requires it, unless the (AFAICT) OS-component RPM is available
as an drop-in update for eCS 1.x too (so including the use of the same directories, and so on). Otherwise I'd really, really like to avoid using software, which requires software, which requires software, which requires software, which requires software. As such I'm not using nor liking Unix.
You are on your own.
If not, then where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
> If not, then where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
Any "solution" assumes that there's, for example, a defined UNIXROOT,
i.e. post-eCS 1.x installs, so I stopped reading and caring too. I'm
not using Unix, and I'm not going to install reiuqrements of
requirements of requirements of requirements of requirements of
requirements of rather useless requirements.
For now I'll stop updating and, eventually, using FF. Well, unless
there happens to be an acceptable solution (possibly including, but
not limited to eCS 3) for a single release.
Excuse me for starting this thread. I did miss the documented "YUM nspr"-part, was too suprised and don't create accounts to report
assumed bugs.
I really hope that the remaining users of updates of FF are happy with whatever the added value of not including required DLLs may be. A new
NLV version of eCS may force me to move towards this happy world too,
but right now eCS 2.x isn't an option.
where can those DLL files be found nowadays?
FWIW/2, downloading the rather useless WPI archive of FF has no use if
you're looking for all files and/or bloody tools which are supposed to
be required to install FF. The archive doesn't include the excluded
DLL files.
> You are on your own.
Actually _you_ are, FWIW.
AFAICT eCS 2.x licenses are only available in English and German, and
it looks like the group of the happy few is dominated by countries
where German or English is the main official language. The rest of the
world seems to be less pleased by this Anglo-Saxon "solution", at
least so far. They've now produced FF for eCS 2.x, probably "Made in Germany".
FWIW/2, downloading the rather useless WPI archive of FF has no use if
you're looking for all files and/or bloody tools which are supposed to
be required to install FF. The archive doesn't include the excluded
DLL files.
--
A package manager is a good idea as Warpin was pretty crappy at things
like downloading dependencies.
In my opinion Warp4 is just too outdated. How would you run Warp4 on an
ACPI system and fully exploit its capabilities if it is a multi-core
machine (which is standard nowadays) ?
Lars Erdmann wrote:
In my opinion Warp4 is just too outdated. How would you run Warp4 on an
ACPI system and fully exploit its capabilities if it is a multi-core
machine (which is standard nowadays) ?
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMP
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
Dave
Hi Dave
Dave Yeo wrote:
Lars Erdmann wrote:
In my opinion Warp4 is just too outdated. How would you run Warp4 on an
ACPI system and fully exploit its capabilities if it is a multi-core
machine (which is standard nowadays) ?
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMP
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
Dave
I seem to recall something like that from my early attempts to get an
AMD 64x2 cpu working with os2apic.psd.
If I remember correctly the answer was to use the OS/4 kernel and loader package, some info about the package here http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Phoenix_OS/4
Regards
Pete
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMPso seems not to work correctly.
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
OS2APIC.PSD is a mess and has never worked for more than a handful of machines.it was designed to run only on selected boards/cpus, preferable IBM
Hi Dave
Dave Yeo wrote:
Lars Erdmann wrote:
In my opinion Warp4 is just too outdated. How would you run Warp4 on an
ACPI system and fully exploit its capabilities if it is a multi-core
machine (which is standard nowadays) ?
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMP
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
Dave
I seem to recall something like that from my early attempts to get an
AMD 64x2 cpu working with os2apic.psd.
If I remember correctly the answer was to use the OS/4 kernel and loader package, some info about the package here http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Phoenix_OS/4
Hi Dave,
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMPso seems not to work correctly.
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
And if you are (only) using Warp4 you don't have a license to use the
SMP stuff, no TCPIP32, no JFS and much more.
...which exactly seconds what I have stated: there is no way to get
Warp4 to run with multiple cores without investing additional effort
(and SW). And using only 1 out of 8 cores is not a solution for me.
OS2APIC.PSD is a mess and has never worked for more than a handful of machines. It's also outdated by now as much of the functionality has now
been taken over by ACPI and therefore the old Intel MP configuration
table (according to the original Intel Multiprozessor spec version 1.4)
in BIOS that OS2APIC.PSD makes use of is often outdated or buggy (ACPI
comes with a new set of tables that mostly replaces that stuff).
Lars
Am 05.06.16 um 02.45 schrieb Pete:
Hi Dave
Dave Yeo wrote:
Lars Erdmann wrote:
In my opinion Warp4 is just too outdated. How would you run Warp4 on an >>>> ACPI system and fully exploit its capabilities if it is a multi-core
machine (which is standard nowadays) ?
Arca Noae's ACPI package is quite happy to run on Warp v4+fp15+SMP
kernel etc though enabling more then one core results in traps here.
Dave
I seem to recall something like that from my early attempts to get an
AMD 64x2 cpu working with os2apic.psd.
If I remember correctly the answer was to use the OS/4 kernel and loader
package, some info about the package here
http://www.os2world.com/wiki/index.php/Phoenix_OS/4
Regards
Pete
And if you are (only) using Warp4 you don't have a license to use the
SMP stuff, no TCPIP32, no JFS and much more.
copying the following files from the latest SM for OS/2
to FF for eCS 2.x seems to work:
At the moment FF/SM doesn't work with Pentium IIIs
They should work with Pentium IIIs and even a Pentium Pro.
If you have older hardware with just one core, like a Pentium M
(e.g. ThinkPad T40-/X30-Series)
A package manager is a good idea as Warpin was pretty
crappy at things like downloading dependencies.
I do have to agree with it being a crappy choice though.
AFAIK FF for Windows
doesn't update system components too.
The other option is to build a statically linked Firefox.
Steve has been doing a pretty good job of packaging the DLLs and
hopefully will produce another package, but it is getting harder.
And, I guess, fully ignored internet connections for the stand-alone machines?
advantage of introducing such a new NSPR-requirement by excluding
required DLLs?
Bitwise has done an excellent job of bug fixing even if we don't like
some of their other decisions.
> contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
> and cpio.exe.
I believe everything is included in http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/attglobal/rpm/unrpm.zip.
Steve has been doing a pretty good job of packaging the DLLs and
hopefully will produce another package, but it is getting harder.
I've had low motivation, since I much prefer SeaMonkey over Firefox.
On 06/01/16 12:39 am, A.D. Fundum wrote:
And, I guess, fully ignored internet connections for the stand-alone
machines?
I understand your point in general, but the applicability in this
scenario is quite limited; is Firefox all that useful without an
internet connection?
advantage of introducing such a new NSPR-requirement by excluding
required DLLs?
If I understand correctly, the forthcoming port of VirtualBox will
require the nspr package as well.
On 06/02/16 09:05 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
> contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
> and cpio.exe.
I believe everything is included in
http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/attglobal/rpm/unrpm.zip.
7zip works also.
Steve Wendt wrote:
On 06/02/16 09:05 pm, Dave Yeo wrote:
> contains all rpms which are extractable via rpm2cpio.exe
> and cpio.exe.
I believe everything is included in
http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/attglobal/rpm/unrpm.zip.
7zip works also.
Wonder if the Windows 7zip still works with Odin? It did have a nice interface.
Dave
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 45:32:52 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Files: | 12,197 |
Messages: | 5,329,774 |