ppgrainbow
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ppgrainbow
-
-
That's what I've been thinking. stagedAddon.exists() can be found on line 5218 which might be preventing the add-ons from being installed correctly.
0 -
Just passing by... XPIProvider.jsm is inside omni.ja, which is a .zip archive with renamed extension.
GL
Thank you for telling me. What's obvious is that omni.ja cannot be opened as a ZIP archive at all. But if you copy the omni.ja file outside the Firefox directory and rename it to omni.zip, you'll see the XPIProvider.jsm which will reside in the \modules directory.
I extracted the XPIProvider.jsm looked at lines 5203 to 5221 to see what could be causing this error:
try {// First stage the file regardless of whether restarting is necessary
if (this.addon.unpack || Prefs.getBoolPref(PREF_XPI_UNPACK, false)) {
LOG("Addon " + this.addon.id + " will be installed as " +
"an unpacked directory");
stagedAddon.append(this.addon.id);
if (stagedAddon.exists())
recursiveRemove(stagedAddon);
stagedAddon.create(Ci.nsIFile.DIRECTORY_TYPE, FileUtils.PERMS_DIRECTORY);
extractFiles(this.file, stagedAddon);
}
else {
LOG("Addon " + this.addon.id + " will be installed as " +
"a packed xpi");
stagedAddon.append(this.addon.id + ".xpi");
if (stagedAddon.exists())
stagedAddon.remove(true);
this.file.copyTo(this.installLocation.getStagingDir(),
this.addon.id + ".xpi");
}
"this.addon.id + ".xpi");" line is located on line 5221 which is what could be causing this error that fails to install add-ons in the first place. I will probably need to compare that to a Firefox 22 installation to see what changes were made that caused the error.
If for some reason, I'm missing anything, please let me know and I'll get back to you.
0 -
I posted the following on the NoScript forum after someone asked me about the "missing file:"
Well, it's all moot. I uninstalled SM 2.21 (FF 24) and reinstalled SM 2.20. And, guess what? The updates were successful. ALL of them. So, it must be an issue with the newest release of the Mozilla platform. I did see somewhere in one of the Mozilla forums how they were changing the installed addon database from SQLite to .JSON format. I'm not sure that it said that exactly, but something like that. I think the "missing file" was an inaccurate warning. I think that it has to do with XPIProvider.jsm. That file is not on my PC. The following is an extract from the error log (see the attached text file, as I can't seem to "cut and paste" the information here:)
I looked at the code for the routine that calls this error -- it is a general "catch" error module. I don't really care; it just would be nice if they would quit tweaking these things in the product, and just improve security, speed, and memory usage. Why mess with something that can affect SOME of the addon updates? And, if XPIProvider.jsm is a "needed" file, why didn't the installation update routine (v2.20 to v2.21) install it where it was supposed to be??
The XPIProvider.jsm isn't found on my PC either and neither in a Windows XP VMware VM. While maintaining the latest workable version of Firefox (which is Firefox 24 and Firefox 24 ESR), Firefox 23 (at the end of the previous ESR) might have been the last version that worked perfectly.
I was wondering how changing the add-on adatabase from SQLite to .json format would break add-on installations and updating. And since XPIProvider.jsm is a needed file, how can it be obtained? :\
0 -
Well, everyone, the shorter path name and moving the profile didn't work for me. Still having problems updating NoScript, FlashGot, and the SQLite Manager.
That doesn't sound good.
0 -
Hello again. I took a look at the Event Viewer and I found some sort of a problem regarding SceCli (found in \WINDOWS\system32 directory) and I've been getting a Event 1202 warning referencing to SceCli up to every two hours since I installed UURollup v11 2013-06-16d on the 7th of August as far as I know.
When I click on the warning, I get this message:
Security policies are propagated with warning. 0x4b8 : An extended error has occurred.
For best results in resolving this event, log on with a non-administrative account and search http://support.microsoft.com for "Troubleshooting Event 1202s".
The information regarding Scecli.dll errors can be found here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc783523%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
I did a check in the sceedut.sdb file in the C:\WINDOWS\security\Database directory and it hasn't been updated since 2013-08-06 20:39:50. That was when I installed UURollup v11 2013-06-16d.
Update 1: I went into the Group Policy Editor under Administrative Tools in the Control Panel and under Local Computer Policy > Windows Settings > Security Settings > Account Policies and Local Policies, I receive the following error:
Windows cannot open the local policy database.An unknown error occurred when attempting to open the database.
Update 2: The Event 1202 error finally went away.
All I had to do was to go into Safe Mode and do the following:
1. Open the %SystemRoot%\Security folder, create a new folder, and then name it "OldSecurity".
2. Move all of the files ending in .log from the %SystemRoot%\Security folder to the OldSecurity folder.
3. Find the Secedit.sdb file in the %SystemRoot%\Security\Database folder, and then rename this file to "Secedit.old".
4. Click Start > Run, type mmc and then click OK.
5. Click Console, click Add/Remove Snap-in, and then add the Security and Configuration snap-in.
6. Right-click Security and Configuration and Analysis, and then click Open Database.
7. Browse to the %TEMP% folder, type Secedit.sdb in the File name box, and then click Open.
8. When you are prompted to import a template, click Setup Security.inf, and then click Open.
9. Copy %TEMP%\Secedit.sdb %SystemRoot%\Security\Database.In regards to #7, I actually extracted the secedit.sdb file from the Windows 2000.vhd file and then place it in the C:\WINDOWS\TEMP folder to rebuild the security database and when I was done, I rebooted and the security policies were applied successfully!
I also deleted the secedit.old file and the log files in the OldSecurity subfolder.
Since this error went away for now, I will eventually have to reboot in a few days to see if the error comes back or not.
0 -
Thank you so much for the help.
The only add-on that I could not reinstall was FireFTP. It's telling me that there was a error installing FireFTP. I'm guessing that it's probably because it has a "{xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx}.xpi" which is 38 characters long for a XPI extension.
0 -
@ppgrainbow, I am having the same problem since upgrading to FF24 (SeaMonkey 2.21). I installed my UURollup (v10d) in April, and have been running GREAT since then, until now. I couldn't update NoScript, FlashGot, and the SQLite Manager. However, another addon, Flagfox, updated fine. I saw somewhere (I think in MozillaZine) that it was something about the path being too long. But, nothing's changed in my FF/SeaMonkey installation (except the version!) I even tried going directly to the noscript.net website and installing the addon from there. I got the "needed file" error message like you saw. I was on the NoScript forum and left a message for Sergio Maone, who hopefully might have some insight. It would be disappointing to not be able to update the addons. The plugins (such as Shockwave Flash) update successfully, except with an Adobe warning that the OS is not supported.
Thank you very much for telling me.
It seems that we're in the next round of ESR (which is Firefox 24 ESR) It would be very disappointing to see that we will be unable to update the addons due to this change.
I sure hope that TomaszW and/or Blackwingcat makes any investigation regarding Firefox 24/Firefox 24 ESR with UURollup. I probably will need to test Firefox 24 in a VM to see if the problem can be reproduced there as well.
0 -
Hey there, I'm running into problems trying to install a add-on under Firefox 24 when running under Windows 2000 with UURollup v11 2013-09-02d installed.
For example, when I try to update the latest version of GreasyMonkey (v1.12), I'm getting a error message that "There was an error installing GreaseMonkey". When I try again, the error message repeats.
Also, when I try to download a add-on from Mozila's Add-ons extensions website, I get a error that "(add-on) cannot be installed because Firefox cannot modify the needed file".
And when I updated my machine to UURollup v11 2013-09-02d, the installation did not complete successfully with the Event 4373 error message in the EventLog:
"Windows 2000 UURollup-v11-d20130902 installation failed. Access is denied."
And here's the full log for complete details:
As far as I know when I tried to reboot my machine, I ran into a BSOD that the login process failed. I don't clearly remember which STOP error it was though, but I managed to go into the Recovery console to revert the botched update that caused Windows 2000 to not operate correctly, if not at all. And since I removed the uninstallation for UURollup v11 2013-09-02d, I can't uninstall it now.
Is there a way to fix this mess that I gotten into and is there a good update to UURollup v11?
0 -
Thanks for the help. I downloaded the 32-bit version of Debugging Tools for Windows from the Windows 7 SDK. I followed the instructions on tracking down better stack traces in Process Monitor like you asked and I configured the symbols for the following:
1. The DGBHELP.DLL path pointing to C:\DebuggingTools\dbghelp.dll
2. The symbol paths pointing to srv*C:\DebuggingTools\symcache*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbolsI checked the call stack on winfile.exe and it uses modules fltmgr.sys, ntdll.dll and ntoskrnl.exe. Upon pressing the Stack tab in the Event Properties, it will look something like this:
The end result is that it fetched 17 frames fltmgr.sys on frames 0 through 3 and ntoskrnl on frames 4 through 16.
Using the Windows Debugger, I attached winfile.exe as a process and this is the final output that I received:
Microsoft ® Windows Debugger Version 6.12.0002.633 X86
Copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.CommandLine: c:\windows\system32\winfile.exe
Symbol search path is: .sympath srv*C:\DebuggerTools\symcache*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbolsExecutable search path is:
ModLoad: 027d0000 02819000 winfile.exe
ModLoad: 7c900000 7c9b2000 ntdll.dll
ModLoad: 7c800000 7c8f6000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\kernel32.dll
ModLoad: 10000000 1000b000 c:\windows\system32\shellwr.dll
ModLoad: 7c9c0000 7d1d7000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\SHELL32.dll
ModLoad: 77dd0000 77e6b000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\ADVAPI32.dll
ModLoad: 77e70000 77f03000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\RPCRT4.dll
ModLoad: 77fe0000 77ff1000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\Secur32.dll
ModLoad: 77f10000 77f59000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\GDI32.dll
ModLoad: 7e410000 7e4a1000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\USER32.dll
ModLoad: 77c10000 77c68000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msvcrt.dll
ModLoad: 77f60000 77fd6000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\SHLWAPI.dll
ModLoad: 5d090000 5d12a000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMCTL32.dll(568.91c): Break instruction exception - code 80000003 (first chance)
eax=00241eb4 ebx=7ffd5000 ecx=00000001 edx=00000002 esi=00241f48 edi=00241eb4
eip=7c90120e esp=0012fb20 ebp=0012fc94 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz na po nc
cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00000202*** ERROR: Symbol file could not be found. Defaulted to export symbols for ntdll.dll -
ntdll!DbgBreakPoint:7c90120e cc int 3
As mentioned above, I received a "Break instruction exception - code 80000003" error and a "ERROR: Symbol file could not be found." error! In short, it appears that something is not right here.
The C:\WINDOWS\System32 sub-directory has 2,476 files in the main-sub directory and another 2,867 files in 203 sub-folders. Using symchk to check for symbols for 12 key system files that are used in winfile.exe, I get the following results:
C:\WINDOWS\System32\WINFILE.EXE: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 1
C:\WINDOWS\System32\NTDLL.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNEL32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHELLWR.DLL: FAILED - Built without debugging information; FAILED files = 1; PASSED + IGNORED files = 0
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHELL32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\RPCRT4.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SECUR32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\GDI32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\USER32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 1
C:\WINDOWS\System32\MSVCRT.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 1
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHLWAPI.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2
C:\WINDOWS\System32\COMCTL32.DLL: FAILED files = 0; PASSED + IGNORED files = 2So far out of the 13 files listed here, only one file SHELLWR.DLL failed symbol checking, because it is built without any debugging information while, three other files had either one passed/ignored files and nine files had at least two passed/ignored files.
The affected files were downloaded to a temporary directory under C:\DebuggingTools\symcache and later moved to C:\Symbols. Each of the 12 files have a PDB extension saved in each directory.
The timestamp and size of the files are the following:
C:\WINDOWS\System32\WINFILE.EXE: 1999-11-18 00:00:00; 250,640 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\NTDLL.DLL: 2010-12-09 07:15:10; 718,336 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNEL32.DLL: 2012-10-02 20:58:14; 990,208 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHELLWR.DLL: 2007-12-01 22:34:04; 27,648 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHELL32.DLL: 2012-06-08 07:26:20; 8,462,848 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.DLL: 2009-02-09 05:10:48; 128,512 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\RPCRT4.DLL: 2013-05-27 18:59:38; 590,848 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SECUR32.DLL: 2009-06-25 01:25:26; 56,832 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\GDI32.DLL: 2008-10-23 05:36:14; 286,720 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\USER32.DLL: 2008-04-14 05:42:10; 587,560 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\MSVCRT.DLL: 2008-04-14 05:42:02; 343,040 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\SHLWAPI.DLL: 2009-12-08 02:23:28; 474,112 bytes
C:\WINDOWS\System32\COMCTL32.DLL: 2010-08-23 09:12:04; 617,472 bytesOkay, looking into the files mentioned above, I'm guessing that one file, SHELL32.DLL from June 2012 might be causing this issue, but I could be wrong here.
Now, where do I go from there to investigate this hard to correct issue now? I mean that some progress has been made, but it seems that I'm not going any further.
I'm awfully sorry if this reply is long, but if nothing can be fixed, I personally hate having to re-install Windows XP SP3 update in order to eliminate this issue here.
Update: I'm doing a backup copy of the disk.vmdk file found in F:\WinXP directory by backing it up to the F:\WinXP\Backup directory incase something goes wrong with the operating system itself. The file where the operating system is installed in is 17.3 GB in size so far.
I tried to re-apply Windows XP SP3, but the excessive CPU usage tied to winfile.exe exists! Have you got any other ideas how to fix the excessive CPU usage tied to winfile.exe?
0 -
Before I go any further, what tools do I use to correctly configure the debug symbols in order to get the names of the functions called?
0 -
Thank you for the help. I used Process Monitor to look at the callstack summary on winfile.exe (File Manager) as Process ID 1612 and I found that some of the files tied to winfile.exe appear to be causing problems here.
If you fail to understand what I mean, I have provided another screenshot for proof:
For some odd reason it seems that ntoskrnl.exe is using .00009% of the time fork and kernel32.dll is using .00027% of the time fork.
I'm at a loss of I don't know what to do next to correct the excessive CPU usage error.
0 -
Okay, I'm currently running Windows XP Home Edition with Service Pack 3 installed as a guest OS for a while under VMware Player and so far, I'm starting to experience some side effects to updating Windows XP.
For some reason, while I'm using the 32-bit Microsoft Windows File Manager (found under \WINDOWS\System32\winfile.exe and originally taken from a Windows NT 4.0 SP6a installation), the CPU utilitisation spikes up between at least 85% to 100% and stays there until I terminate the process.
Closing File Manager has no effect and the process remains there until I use either Process Explorer or the Windows Task Manager to close the misbehaving winfile.exe process. I believe that one of the security updates from June 2012 had a affect on this. I have provided a screenshot of what the problem looks like:
How can I fix the problem regarding the excessive CPU usage running Windows File Manager?
0 -
Java 7 doesn't work correctly, if not at all since it was released.
However, Java 6 Update 51 still works under Firefox 23, however, I must strongly warn that future versions of Firefox, SeaMonkey or any other Mozilla-based web browser will not work correctly, if not at all on Java 6 even though it will still remain under limited support until December 2016.
0 -
That's good to hear that and the updates that I'm applying is on the main machine that I'm currently using.
Incase there is a newer daily or weekly version of UURollup v11, I will test this either on Virtual PC or VMware Player with Windows 2000 runing incase something goes wrong. 0 -
When you install an updated UURollup-v11-xxxx, do you have to first uninstall the existing one?
Yes. That's what I do when a newer daily (or weekly version) of UURollup v11 comes out
0 -
That sounds good to hear that a newer daily version of UURollup v11 is going to be released soon.
I had a check at the Event Log recently and in the Application Log, I'm getting a Event 1202 error referencing SceCli in nearly a two hour span since 2:08:19 PM on the 7th of August:
Security policies are propagated with warning. 0x4b8 : An extended error has occurred.For best results in resolving this event, log on with a non-administrative account and search http://support.microsoft.com for "Troubleshooting Event 1202s".
Did you mean the opposite?That's what I'm saying.
I wish that there was a way to fix the Event 1202 issue in the next daily version of UURollup v11.
0 -
I'm referring the latest version from 16 June 2003 (Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20130616-x86-ENU.7z) enclosed in a 7-Zip file as I said earlier. Is there going to be another daily update to UURollup v11 soon?
Also, I apologise, but if I fail to understand the question clearly, please let me know and I'll get back to you.
0 -
Thank you for telling me. Right now, UURollup v11 isn't 100% stable despite that the glitches that it may occur. As for the black background in the taskbar, it doesn't matter, but there are workarounds to fix it and it must be done in my own risk.
Unfortunately, while there is a option to uninstall the latest daily version of UURollup v11, uninstalling UURollup v10 is not a option unless I take the risk to reinstall Windows 2000.
As far as I know, Firefox 23 is working "as is".
0 -
I applied all of the official updates including Update Rollup 1 for SP4 and applied USP5.1 as far as I know. Then I applied the stable version of UURollup v10d and the latest daily version of UURollup v11. But I agree that UURollup v11 should work without problems as I ran it in VPC.
(I hate having to uninstall the current daily version of UURollup v11, reapply Update Rollup 2, UURollup v10d and the latest daily version of UURollup v11.)
I think that it would be best to try to dig deep and look for modified system files to see what could be causing the title in the About box to not display.
0 -
The background is often black if you don't have the firefox.ico installed in the \Firefox directory. I installed the latest version of UURollup in VirtualPC for testing and found that the black background was still present, because of the logo change.
In Microsoft Virtual PC 2004, the Windows 2000 SP4 VM has a 12 GB virtual disk with 9.25 GB of disk space remaining, 256 MB of system memory allocated to the VM and 16 MB of video memory. The VM doesn't even have the unofficial Service Pack 5.1 nor the stable version of UURollup v10d installed.
I'm guessing that applying SP 5.1 and UURollup v10d might have caused the Firefox text in the About box to not display properly, but I could be wrong here.
0 -
Good point.
A good workaround was to use a icon editing utility such as IcoFX 1.64. I did the following:1. Go to File > Open and select firefox.exe, select Icon 1 to extract the first icon.
2. Right click and select New Image, select 256 Colors (8 bits). Apply the same for 256 x 256, 48 x 48, 32 x 32 and 16 x 16 icons.
3. Save the file as firefox.ico that doesn't contain true colour+alpha transparency.
4. Reboot(recommended). With that in mind, the Firefix icon should be retroactively affected by this change.
I already have the latest revision of UURollup v11 applied right now and I can't seen to fix the no Firefox text in the About box, btw.
0 -
Umm? It seems to show no problem.
https://twitter.com/mofooter/status/364918922379673601/photo/1
Also, when you select Help > About Firefox in the menu, the Firefox text no longer appears.Thanks for the heads up. I'm currently using the UURollup and might want to investigate what could be causing the title bar to not display...
0 -
Hey ppgrainbow,
Check the Hotstream forum for all updates related to my unofficial packages (specifically the Unofficial SP 5.2 for Microsoft Windows 2000 topic).
UURollup-v11 is being updated but only through the daily channel so I can't guarantee stability. You need to check it yourself. At the moment I'm fully focused on updating my website and preparing USP5.2 so there won't be any new stable versions released of the other packages. UURollup-v11 daily is going to updated until USP5.2 is ready.
Firefox has changed the logo (the new one looks horrible
) and I don't think you can easily do anything to fix it. The same thing happens with Skype whose icon also has such a black background.Thank you for telling me. I will be testing the latest version of UURollup in a VMware VM to make sure it at least works.
As far as I know, a temporary workaround would be to use a icon editing utility and remove alpha transparency, which only works on Windows XP and above and then save the file as a ICO extension. I'm also looking into other clever ideas to get alpha transparency removed also.
0 -
Has anyone installed Firefox 23 yet on Windows 2000? It was on Mozlla's FTP servers hours ago.
Firefox 23 does work with the current revision of UURollup v11 (released on 2013-02-23). However, what I'm seeing is that the Firefox icon logo now has a black background surrounding it. In Firefox 22, the background used to be transparent.
Also, when you select Help > About Firefox in the menu, the Firefox text no longer appears.
Is there a way to fix the issue with the black background surrounding the Firefox logo?
By the way, I might have to provide screenshots for proof...
Edit: I checked the website where it has the daily updates and found that Windows2000-UURollup-v11-d20130616-x86-ENU.7z is the latest daily UURollup release. However, I don't know if it's stable enough to use.
Also, I checked the release notes and found that Mozilla developers updated the Firefox logo to use alpha transparent true colour icons for Firefox 23 and beyond, for which it displays a black background instead of a transparent one.
I'm wondering if there are anymore updates to UURollup, btw.
0
) and I don't think you can easily do anything to fix it. The same thing happens with Skype whose icon also has such a black background.
Issues with Firefox 24 and latest daily version of UURollup v11
in Windows 2000/2003/NT4
Posted
Thank you very much for telling me. Changing the extensions.alwaysunpack to true worked very well!
As for the UURollup, it looks like that there seemed to be a problem with the installation failing on adding registry changes properly.
Incase there are any "access denied" errors occurring when I try to install a future version of UURollup and Windows 2000 fails to operate correctly, I will need to work with the recovery console on a backup computer w/internet access how to recover from the botched UURollup installation.