624530 - GIOService is trying to load hardcoded libgio-2.0.so

Status: NEW

(Core :: XPCOM, defect)

Description

[Wolfgang Rosenauer [:wolfiR]]

Within GIOService we load symbols via dlopen from libgio-2.0.so.
A library with that name is considered to be a development file. Production systems (currently) have libgio-2.0.so.0.
If it still needs to be dlopened (not sure if it is since GIO support is not compiled by default and I'm not sure if anyone uses it right now), it should be changed to the real runtime library name or set via pref (there are already examples where it's done that way).
Or just raise our requirement for glib/gio versions if we built gio support?
I'm actually not sure what the best option is.

Comment 1

[Wolfgang Rosenauer [:wolfiR]]

The short term fix is proposed in bug 611953 by changing the library name to libgio-2.0.so.0. I'm still wondering though if it should be hardcoded.

Comment 2

[Karl Tomlinson (:karlt)]

I don't really see a need to make it hardcoded given that we already have the code for run-time checks.

However, now that we depend on GLIBCXX_3.4.9 (bug 621704), I assume it is that more than anything that limits which systems run Mozilla's binaries.

I'd be interested to know whether having GLIBCXX_3.4.9 more or less suggests a system with gio.  If so, we should update glib on our build machines and turn on gio.

Comment 3

[Wolfgang Rosenauer [:wolfiR]]

(In reply to comment #2)
> I'd be interested to know whether having GLIBCXX_3.4.9 more or less suggests a
> system with gio.  If so, we should update glib on our build machines and turn
> on gio.

Some real life examples from openSUSE:
GLIBCXX_3.4.9 is provided since openSUSE 11.1 (two years old) and it had libgio already but I doubt a Firefox with libgio instead of libgnomevfs would be the right thing there. We are planning to build gio instead of gnome-vfs starting with openSUSE 11.4 only.
So I _think_ there is noone out there shipping Firefox with gio support yet and for future releases it may be save to require a new enough glib. -> no dlopen

MoFo builds shouldn't expect that yet though I think.

Comment 4

[Karl Tomlinson (:karlt)]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Some real life examples from openSUSE:
> GLIBCXX_3.4.9 is provided since openSUSE 11.1 (two years old) and it had libgio
> already ...

Thanks.

> but I doubt a Firefox with libgio instead of libgnomevfs would be the
> right thing there. We are planning to build gio instead of gnome-vfs starting
> with openSUSE 11.4 only.

Do you have any specific concerns (beyond limited testing) re using gio instead of gnome-vfs on such older systems?

Comment 5

[Karl Tomlinson (:karlt)]

The library name was corrected in
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1c4241b5a0d4

I'd rather not add a pref for the library name unnecessarily.
If the library name changes, then the signatures of the functions we use may change and so it is likely not appropriate to use the new library.
It is hopefully unlikely that the library name will change.

The only remaining question raised here then is whether we can link --enable-gio builds of libmozgnome.so directly to libgio instead of using dlopen.
libgio is probably old enough that we could link directly, provided we are not relying on recently added functions.

Comment 6

[HEYBERGER]

I don't keep Firefox-10; I was trying Firefox-27.0.1 and it gives error and crashing the web : " no file libgio-2.0.so.0 is found on your EeePC 701 4GB
since I run Firefox 2.0.0.20 only with this netbook
 I have search and not found the error of reporter crash for firefox-27.0.1

[e-mail]  or [e-mail]

Comment 7

[HEYBERGER]

I don't keep Firefox-10; I was trying Firefox-27.0.1 and it gives error and crashing the web : " no file libgio-2.0.so.0 is found on your EeePC 701 4GB
since I run Firefox 2.0.0.20 only with this netbook
 I have search; I found the error of crash reporter for installing firefox-27.0.1 and firefox doesn't run.
Firefox2.0.0.20 is runing for the Web without updating the plugins (java; flashplayer, mplayerplug-in,AdobeReader9.4.2 )after checking automaticaly from factory Firefox 2.0.0.11

[e-mail]  or [e-mail]

Comment 8

[HEYBERGER]

Attachment: Mise à jour firefox 2de /opt/firefox pour Firefox-28.0 sur /usr/lib/firefox

With Firefox-28.0 the same problem appeares in /usr/lib/firefox than with Firefox-27.0.1   "no such File or Directory" for libgio-2.0.so.0 and libxul.so 
I have the tweeth files in the same Folder /usr/lib/firefox  and the plugin-container or the file crashreporter don't detected the libgio-2.0.so.0 or lixul.so on the netbook EeePc 701 4GB.
Why this mistakes?

Comment 9

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

Clear a needinfo that is pending on an inactive user.

For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.