161918 - The procedure entry point ??InsProxy.. could not be located in the dynamic link library xpcom.dll - XPCOM:EventReceiver:mozilla.exe - Entry Point Not Found

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(SeaMonkey :: General, defect)

Description

[Ralf Hauser]

At least my Mozilla doesn't seem too unstable after this.
Just downloaded the last two nightly builds and then cacades, enigmail, and the
spell checker (all xpi's). 
I saw that there exist several other reports on this. Some older xpi's of spell
checker (their page seems to be built up by the First In Never Out FINO
principle) however wouldn't even install. How can this be fixed?

Comment 1

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

uninstall mozilla, delete all files in c:\programs\Mozilla.org\Mozilla\ (but
save your plugins) and reinstall mozilla.

Run Mozilla without installing the XPIs.
If it works = wfm

if you get problems after you install the xpi's = invalid

Comment 2

[Ralf Hauser]

Thanks for the hint - will probably work. 
However, I am a little bit confused about this notion of "WFM".
Are xpi's not yet ready for the general public? 
If we want everybody to benefit from our efforts, shouldn't xpi's
a) either work or
b) provide a meaningful error message?

After all, I want to use digital signatures and a spell checker. And I would
guess that the Mozilla project would want these features to become available for
every user? Or do you say that particularly these two are not yet ready for
broader use yet? If so, how would a layman determine (prior to running into
troubles) which xpi's are good and which aren't? At least they installed fine
without any particular warning.

If your proposed approach fixes the problem, I contend that this acceptable
maybe for cascade "power users" but not for everybody else?

Did I miss the point here?

Comment 3

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

>Are xpi's not yet ready for the general public? 

No, it's not written for that Mozilla version if you get this error from an
installed xpi.

>If we want everybody to benefit from our efforts, shouldn't xpi's
>a) either work or
>b) provide a meaningful error message?

There is no way to detect this kind of error.

You can get this error always if you install over an older build.

Comment 4

[Ralf Hauser]

> There is no way to detect this kind of error.
Conclusion: Stay away from xpi's its not a robust enough concept?
> 
> You can get this error always if you install over an older build.
Most likely, I did it the other way round. I had a very new build and an older xpi.

Comment 5

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

> There is no way to detect this kind of error.
Conclusion: Stay away from xpi's its not a robust enough concept?

No, stay away from XPIs which are using unfrozen Interfaces or something like that.
or use always the newest XPI.

> 
> You can get this error always if you install over an older build.
Most likely, I did it the other way round. I had a very new build and an older xpi.

No, i mean your build itself.
You can get this if you install a new mozilla build over an older Mozilla Build
without uninstalling.

Is this now solved ?
What is the problem : the XPI or the installing over an older build ?

Comment 6

[Ralf Hauser]

> No, stay away from XPIs which are using unfrozen Interfaces or 
> something like that.
1) How would I find out if they do proactively?
> or use always the newest XPI.
2) I definitively did.
> 
> You can get this if you install a new mozilla build over an older 
> Mozilla Build
> without uninstalling.
I guess I did. 
3) Suggestion: other installation procedures detect their ancestor installations
and first uninstall them automatically as part of their own install. Couldn't
Mozilla do that to avoid the trouble we are facing an be more robust. 
4) Should I open a new RFE bug for this?
> 
> Is this now solved ?
Only infrequent crashes, so I guess yes.
> What is the problem : the XPI or the installing over an older build ?
I didn't take the effort, to isolate the problem, but if my above suggestion 3)
is implemented, we will know soon.

Comment 7

[Matthias Versen [:Matti]]

you can't uninstall XPIs but we have a bug for that :-)

You can't solve 1) but the XPI developers can and they should.

But it's really unclear what this bug caused.
-> wfm

Comment 8

[Ralf Hauser]

Thanks for your help, I posted the necessary bugs.
> you can't uninstall XPIs but we have a bug for that :-)
found it: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7884
> 
> You can't solve 1) but the XPI developers can and they should.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162801
> 
> But it's really unclear what this bug caused.
> -> wfm
3/4) http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162800