WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: getFlash11.scm Bug  (Read 7116 times)

Offline SamK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
getFlash11.scm Bug
« on: June 17, 2012, 08:00:27 AM »
Yesterday
getFlash11.tcz was used to create flash11.tcz.  This works OK in opera-11.scm.

Today
getFlash11.scm was used to create flash.scm.  This fails in opera-11.scm.

Code: [Select]
getflash11.sh --available
Available versions for install:
11.2.202.228 11.1.102.63 11.1.102.62 11.0.1.152 11.1.102.55
A flash scm was built for each of the available versions.  They all fail to show Flash content.

I looked inside the flash11.tcz but cannot find any version information.

Offline AbNoRMiS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • nothing can be impeccable in this imperfect world
    • @ß№®M!$
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2012, 08:28:26 AM »
curiously because i created flash.scm by default without selecting versions
and this works in opera-11.scm, seamonkey.scm and midori.scm
Basic Design Concept © @ß№®M!$
please forgive my terrible english :)

Offline SamK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2012, 10:16:29 AM »
curiously because i created flash.scm by default without selecting versions
and this works in opera-11.scm, seamonkey.scm and midori.scm
I also created it using the default without specifying a version, but this also does not work with opera-11.scm. 

Offline AbNoRMiS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • nothing can be impeccable in this imperfect world
    • @ß№®M!$
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2012, 01:40:43 PM »
perhaps such difference also exist because i still use gtk2.tcz instead gtk2.scm ?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 01:45:54 PM by AbNoRMiS »
Basic Design Concept © @ß№®M!$
please forgive my terrible english :)

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9668
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2012, 02:39:33 PM »
getFlash.scm and it's resulting flash.scm works fine with opera-11 here.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2012, 03:26:05 AM »
I looked inside the flash11.tcz but cannot find any version information.

Try:
Code: [Select]
grep 'Shockwave Flash 1' libflashplayer.so
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline SamK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2012, 03:40:00 AM »
getFlash.scm and it's resulting flash.scm works fine with opera-11 here.
I have re-run the tests while trying to reduce the number of variable elements as follows:

* opera11.tcz and opera11.scm were used for direct comparison
* flash11.tcz was rebuilt today (v11.2.202.236)
* flash.scm was rebuilt today (default - is this v11.2.202.228 as latest shown by --available)
* The progs loaded were minimized as shown in each test
* The same youtube video about TC was used http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEwr6Mvyx9s
* The machine was rebooted between each test


TEST1
Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/onboot.lst

Xvesa.tcz
Xprogs.tcz
kmaps.tcz
icewm.tcz
OSS.tcz
opera-11.tcz
flash11.tcz

Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/scmboot.lst

empty
Result: Works
Screenshot: opera-11.tcz+flash.tcz.jpg


TEST2
Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/onboot.lst

Xvesa.tcz
Xprogs.tcz
kmaps.tcz
icewm.tcz
OSS.tcz
opera-11.tcz

Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/scmboot.lst

flash
Result: Fails
Screenshot: opera-11.tcz+flash.scm.jpg



TEST3
Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/onboot.lst

Xvesa.tcz
Xprogs.tcz
kmaps.tcz
icewm.tcz
OSS.tc

Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/scmboot.lst

opera-11
flash
Result: Fails
Screenshot: opera11.scm+flash.scm.jpg


TEST4
Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/onboot.lst

Xvesa.tcz
Xprogs.tcz
kmaps.tcz
icewm.tcz
OSS.tcz
flash11.tcz

Code: [Select]
cat /mnt/sdb1/tce/scmboot.lst

opera-11
Result: Works
Screenshot: opera11.scm+flash11.tcz.jpg


In the tests using flash-11.tcz always works irrespective of the browser format. Using flash.scm always fails irrespective of the browser format.  Is this is due to a difference in version of flash used during the builing of the scm/tcz?

When building the tcz flash the version number is displayed.  The scm version does not.  Is the same version used for both builds?  The scm --available does not list the version used by the tcz. Does the default scm build always download the latest published version?

Would it be possible to test using a limited number of programs loaded such as I used?  Perhaps OSS and keymaps may be omitted.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2012, 04:08:11 AM »
Uhmm... what about loading gtk2?
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9668
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2012, 04:22:20 AM »
It is assumed that gtk2.scm will be loaded when using flash.scm.  But I will make part of the getflash script create a flash.scm.dep file so when flash.scm is loaded it will also load gtk2.scm.

Looking at the onboot.lst and scmboot.lst above, missing gtk2 is the obvious culprit.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2012, 04:44:32 AM »
It is assumed that gtk2.scm will be loaded when using flash.scm.

The requirement appears to be most obvious from the .info

Quote
But I will make part of the getflash script create a flash.scm.dep file so when flash.scm is loaded it will also load gtk2.scm.

Looking at the onboot.lst and scmboot.lst above, missing gtk2 is the obvious culprit.

IMHO making gtk2.scm a mandatory dependency would result in a huge penalty for all users having gtk2.tcz already installed.
By my estimation the amount of users loading gtk2.tcz anyway and occasionally wanting to make use of flash.scm may not be negligible.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9668
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2012, 04:47:41 AM »
On second thought you are right, I will keep gtk2 as a mention in the info file. 


Offline AbNoRMiS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
  • nothing can be impeccable in this imperfect world
    • @ß№®M!$
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2012, 05:39:07 AM »
IMHO making gtk2.scm a mandatory dependency would result in a huge penalty for all users having gtk2.tcz already installed.
By my estimation the amount of users loading gtk2.tcz anyway and occasionally wanting to make use of flash.scm may not be negligible.
now i have installed only gtk2.tcz because some extensions require its
and when i install any scm that requires gtk2.scm ie has it in its dep-file
then gtk2.scm even do not downloads and these scm are correctly use gtk2.tcz instead gtk2.scm
this provided in the script code /usr/bin/scm-load to avoid unnecessary downloads and overhead


p.s.
it seems to me that by getflash script creation flash.scm.dep with gtk2.scm do not be superfluous
but even contrary will prevent user mistakes
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 05:59:27 AM by AbNoRMiS »
Basic Design Concept © @ß№®M!$
please forgive my terrible english :)

Offline SamK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2012, 06:30:00 AM »
It is assumed that gtk2.scm will be loaded when using flash.scm. 
I completely overlooked this when I read the info file to find the use of the --available switch.  It does indeed work when gtk2 is loaded.  I just didn't connect the dots when moving the scm and md5.txt files from /tmp... that a dep file had not been created.

On second thought you are right, I will keep gtk2 as a mention in the info file. 
This seems a curious decision.  Other scms that require gtk2 (or gtk3) are already in the repo that specify them as dependencies.  It seems to break a central objective of the scm format to leave out of an scm app something that is an absolute requirement for it to fulfill its purpose.  The result is that the application is no longer self-contained.

IMHO making gtk2.scm a mandatory dependency would result in a huge penalty for all users having gtk2.tcz already installed.
By my estimation the amount of users loading gtk2.tcz anyway and occasionally wanting to make use of flash.scm may not be negligible.
now i have installed only gtk2.tcz because some extensions require its
and when i install any scm that requires gtk2.scm ie has it in its dep-file
then gtk2.scm even do not downloads and these scm are correctly use gtk2.tcz instead gtk2.scm
this provided in the script code /usr/bin/scm-load to avoid unnecessary downloads and overhead


p.s.
it seems to me that by getflash script creation flash.scm.dep with gtk2.scm do not be superfluous
but even contrary will prevent user mistakes
In view of this report it would seem the most favourable outcome will be obtained by listing gtk2 as a dependency of flash.scm


Edit
fix typos
   
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 06:34:37 AM by SamK »

Offline Jason W

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9668
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2012, 02:15:45 PM »
Ok, I see the point, and having gtk2.scm in the dep file would be in line with the other apps as it is an absolute need. 


Offline SamK

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: getFlash11.scm Bug
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2012, 11:53:25 PM »
Ok, I see the point, and having gtk2.scm in the dep file would be in line with the other apps as it is an absolute need.
Thanks.


One small matter relating to the info file, it shows an incorrect command.
Code: [Select]
getFlash11.sh --available
sh: getFlash11.sh: not found


getflash11.sh --available
Available versions for install:
11.2.202.228 11.1.102.63 11.1.102.62 11.0.1.152 11.1.102.5