[HARDY] binary components provided by extensions not loaded

[4711]

Binary package hint: mozilla-firefox

Hardy beta.

Binary components (.so) within extensions are not loaded at startup with Fxb5.
Instead this message is shown in the error console:
Failed to load XPCOM component: /xxxx/xxxx.so

Additionaly this error is reported after EVERY extension install:
Failed to load XPCOM component: /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9b5/components/libpyloader.so

Running a Fxb5 downloaded from mozilla with a fresh profile (created with that download) is working as expected.
Running the Fxb5 from the distribution on that working profile makes that profile show
the same problems as described above.

[Scott Beamer (angrykeyboarder)]

See the section under "Trails" and "Rocker Gestures" here --> http://www.mousegestures.org/preview.html

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:44PM -0000, 4711 wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> Binary package hint: mozilla-firefox
>
> Hardy beta.
>
> Binary components (.so) within extensions are not loaded at startup with Fxb5.
> Instead this message is shown in the error console:
> Failed to load XPCOM component: /xxxx/xxxx.so
>
> Additionaly this error is reported after EVERY extension install:
> Failed to load XPCOM component: /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9b5/components/libpyloader.so
>
> Running a Fxb5 downloaded from mozilla with a fresh profile (created with that download) is working as expected.
> Running the Fxb5 from the distribution on that working profile makes that profile show
> the same problems as described above.
>

 affects ubuntu/firefox-3.0
 status confirmed
 importance low

python is not really an important component, but i agree that this
should be fixed. IIRC; there is a bug open (or even already fixed)
upstream ...

 affects firefox

 - Alexander

[C Snover (launchpad-net-zetafleet)]

Is this fixed? Is this not fixed? I'm having issues with the Html Validator for Firefox extension saying it can't find its C library, and did see "Failed to load XPCOM component" errors after its first installation (which led me to this bug), but not any time after that.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:57:56PM -0000, C Snover wrote:
> Is this fixed? Is this not fixed? I'm having issues with the Html
> Validator for Firefox extension saying it can't find its C library, and
> did see "Failed to load XPCOM component" errors after its first
> installation (which led me to this bug), but not any time after that.
>

Your issue is something else. Is Html Validator licensed under a free
license? If so, please add it to the appropriate table on
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Firefox3Extensions ... maybe we can
package it then.

 - Alexander

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

Just tried to install the google toolbar.
Same problem. The binary components are not registered.
Install the toolbar and have a look at the error console...

Is this still minor?

And from my point of view it is totally out of perspective to ask for it as
"licensed as free".

Fx3 provided by Ubuntu is simply not behaving the same way as Fx3 downloaded from Mozilla.

Fx3 provided by Ubuntu feels free to destory a working profile.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:00AM -0000, 4711 wrote:
> Just tried to install the google toolbar.
> Same problem. The binary components are not registered.
> Install the toolbar and have a look at the error console...
>
> Is this still minor?
>
> And from my point of view it is totally out of perspective to ask for it as
> "licensed as free".
>
> Fx3 provided by Ubuntu is simply not behaving the same way as Fx3
> downloaded from Mozilla.

Thats because mozilla links their firefox binaries against the oldest
libc library available on the net.

 - Alexander

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

To summarize:

Some extensions don't work under Ubuntu 8.04 because mozilla links against old libc libraries.

Is there a documentation about that somewhere?
Is there a documentation available HOW to compile binary components working with
Fx2, Fx3/Mozilla and Fx3/Ubuntu?

Is there a Mozilla-SDK available to compile against for Fx2/3/Mozilla/Ubuntu?

[stephan (sp-launchpad)]

I created my own binary component that runs well in FF3 on other Linux distributions. In Ubuntu it is a bit tricky for me to use my binary extension. If I start Firefox directly it fails. But if I start Firefox via Thunderbird (click on a link in an email) my extensions works well.

I think it is the xulrunner. Ubuntus Firefox is build on xulrunner and does not provide the xpcom library to the extension. When Firefox is started through Thunderbird, which uses the xpcom lib, that the library is available for the binary extension and everything works well in my case.

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

stephan wrote:
> I created my own binary component that runs well in FF3 on other Linux
> distributions. In Ubuntu it is a bit tricky for me to use my binary
> extension. If I start Firefox directly it fails. But if I start Firefox
> via Thunderbird (click on a link in an email) my extensions works well.
>
> I think it is the xulrunner. Ubuntus Firefox is build on xulrunner and
> does not provide the xpcom library to the extension. When Firefox is
> started through Thunderbird, which uses the xpcom lib, that the library
> is available for the binary extension and everything works well in my
> case.
>
>
using packages that you made are not supported, please ask this either
on answers.launchpad.net or <email address hidden>

 status invalid

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

[stephan (sp-launchpad)]

That is not want I meant. Other Distros are able to build the Firefox in that way, that third party binary components are able to run. I think it is better, if the Ubuntu Firefox is build the "compatible" way. The Ubuntu Thunderbird for example is build the "compatible" way. That means that the Ubuntu maintainers of Thunderbird and Firefox have different build strategies. The Thunderbird strategy is better in my opinion, because it allows third party components.

The work around, to start the Firefox from the Thunderbird makes another library available. That shows the different dependencies of Thunderbird and Firefox in the Ubuntu build.

All third party components are normally build to work in the official Mozilla releases. Firefox and Thunderbird have no xulrunner dependency in that case. In Ubuntu the firefox-3.0 has a dependency on xulrunner-1.9. thunderbird has not.

I hope this posting is a bit better understandable.

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

stephan wrote:
> That is not want I meant. Other Distros are able to build the Firefox in
> that way, that third party binary components are able to run. I think it
> is better, if the Ubuntu Firefox is build the "compatible" way. The
> Ubuntu Thunderbird for example is build the "compatible" way. That means
> that the Ubuntu maintainers of Thunderbird and Firefox have different
> build strategies. The Thunderbird strategy is better in my opinion,
> because it allows third party components.
>
> The work around, to start the Firefox from the Thunderbird makes another
> library available. That shows the different dependencies of Thunderbird
> and Firefox in the Ubuntu build.
>
> All third party components are normally build to work in the official
> Mozilla releases. Firefox and Thunderbird have no xulrunner dependency
> in that case. In Ubuntu the firefox-3.0 has a dependency on
> xulrunner-1.9. thunderbird has not.
>
> I hope this posting is a bit better understandable.
>
>
please post it to the mailing list as it is not a bug.

--
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

> please post it to the mailing list as it is not a bug.

Ok, actually there is no one willing to give an answer.
Please close this bug.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59:23AM -0000, stephan wrote:
> That is not want I meant. Other Distros are able to build the Firefox in
> that way, that third party binary components are able to run. I think it
> is better, if the Ubuntu Firefox is build the "compatible" way. The
> Ubuntu Thunderbird for example is build the "compatible" way. That means
> that the Ubuntu maintainers of Thunderbird and Firefox have different
> build strategies. The Thunderbird strategy is better in my opinion,
> because it allows third party components.

This point is somewhat rotten as both applications are more or less
maintained by me ;).

 - Alexander

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:44:33AM -0000, 4711 wrote:
> To summarize:
>
> Some extensions don't work under Ubuntu 8.04 because mozilla links
> against old libc libraries.
>
> Is there a documentation about that somewhere?
> Is there a documentation available HOW to compile binary components working with
> Fx2, Fx3/Mozilla and Fx3/Ubuntu?
>
> Is there a Mozilla-SDK available to compile against for
> Fx2/3/Mozilla/Ubuntu?
>

I think in ffox 3 the old libc argument isnt true anymore. so lets
work on what is rest. could you please test the nss/nspr packages that
are in hardy-proposed and see if they help you to install extensions
with binary components that were compiled against upstream ffox/xul.

If you dont get an answer here, ping me in #ubuntu-mozillateam on
irc.freenode.net.

Thanks,

 - Alexander

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

After installing libnspr4-dev (4.7.1+1.9-0Ubuntu0.8.04.1) binary components are loaded.

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

I've just done a fresh Ubuntu 8.04.1 installation. After installing all distro-updates and
starting Fx 3.0.1 and installing an extension with a binary component, the component
was _not_ loaded.
After installing libnspr4-dev and deleting compreg.dat and xpti.dat from the Fx profile the
component was loaded and is working as expected.
Using a fresh Fx profile (libnspr4-dev already installed) and installing an extension with
binary component(s) _without_ deleting the two files is also working.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:09:23PM -0000, 4711 wrote:
> I've just done a fresh Ubuntu 8.04.1 installation. After installing all distro-updates and
> starting Fx 3.0.1 and installing an extension with a binary component, the component
> was _not_ loaded.
> After installing libnspr4-dev and deleting compreg.dat and xpti.dat from the Fx profile the
> component was loaded and is working as expected.
> Using a fresh Fx profile (libnspr4-dev already installed) and installing an extension with
> binary component(s) _without_ deleting the two files is also working.
>

this should be fixed by latest nss/nspr packages in hardy-updates.

 - Alexander

[4711 (bugs-krickelkrackel)]

I've just installed the update for libnspr4-0d (4.7.1+1.9-ubuntu0.8.04.5) and everything is working fine now.

It might be necessary to delete compreg.dat and xpti.dat from the used Fx profile to (re)register the component(s).