Iris SharedLibs issues
George T. Greenfield (154) 736 posts |
I’ve just bought Iris and it’s impressive: I wouldn’t consider internet banking on RISC OS, but this is the first RO browser I’ve tried that can log into Barclays online banking (I’ve also got/used Netsurf, Otter, Oregano and Browse), even though I’m told my version of Safari (sic) is out of date. |
Raik (463) 2052 posts |
Iris has it’s own SharedLib stuff inside and change the path on startup. |
George T. Greenfield (154) 736 posts |
That’s very brave, Raik! I might try doing the same (backing up first, as you rightly advise). But the fundamental issue is that the two sets of SharedLibs are mutually exclusive, which is not satisfactory. For a long time I resisted the urge to buy (i.e. invest in) Iris because I had committed to the !Packman procedure on my system and didn’t want to confuse matters. Now that I have Iris I find that the situation is as I feared. Is it not feasible to have a unified SharedLibs, ideally hosted by !Packman, which could support Iris as well as the !Packman apps? Your merger hack suggests that this could be done. |
Raik (463) 2052 posts |
At first I have try to find out what the difference are. Second I have try to use different independently stages of SharedLibs. As I understand the documentation, it should be possible but I never get it work. |
Rick Murray (539) 13751 posts |
I suspect this might be due to the “beta” nature of Iris. Has anybody diffed the various releases of Iris? I suspect that it may not just be the browser executable that changes, but the libraries too, and sorting that out with PackMan may be problematic. Not to mention having dependencies separate to the browser releases. I can imagine things will be better once there’s an official release, but whilst things are in a state of flux, I doubt there’s any really ideal solution. Merging the two is likely to be the best option for now. |
Bryan (8467) 468 posts |
I find other things are incompatible between software from Rool and software from Rod. But back to Iris: I have lost the login details for updates, so can somebody tell me if the January build of !Iris is still the latest. I agree that it is impressive, but it does need some updates. |
Chris Hall (132) 3544 posts |
I find other things are incompatible between software from Rool and software from Rod. Don’t worry – whichever is the first to get WiFi working will displace the other. |
Rick Murray (539) 13751 posts |
Send Andrew an email? He’s not an ogre, he won’t bite! |
George T. Greenfield (154) 736 posts |
Mine (purchased yesterday, 19 April) is version 1.019 dated 11 January 2022. Presumably that’s the latest to date. |
John Jeffords (8738) 26 posts |
Unless they charge silly money for it, and the other one does it for free. Ah, RiscOS. |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2162 posts |
I seem to recall a statement from Andrew to that effect. The libraries included with Iris are themselves beta, and ‘polluting’ the ‘real’ SharedLibs with beta libraries wasn’t seen as ideal. |
George T. Greenfield (154) 736 posts |
Delving further into the issue of incompatible SharedLibs: the !System Helpfile supplied with Iris lists 3 modules which will either be loaded from Resources (if not present) or from the system. These are: SharedUnixLibrary 1.16 (3 Apr 2020); ARMEABISupport 1.03 (01-May 2021); and CryptRandom 0.13 (01 Jun 2012). Now here’s the weird bit: all three were already present on my system: the latest !PackMan version numbers are identical, apart from the suffix -1, so 1.16-1; 1.03-1 and 0.13-1. Are these actually different (newer? older?) versions? Presumably they are, because otherwise there would be no compatibility issue. |
Chris Johnson (125) 825 posts |
If you look into the SharedLibs folder within the Iris application you will see there are dozens of libs in there. The modules in !System are not really relevant to the shared libraries question. |
Chris Mahoney (1684) 2162 posts |
The -1 suffix in PackMan is the package version. If the package is rebuilt for what ever reason, but still contains the same unchanged module, then the package version would increase to 2. An example is one of my own packages that I just updated this week. The package assumed that the Choices directory was in a particular place, instead of referencing it via its variable. I released an updated package that references it correctly, but the actual file being installed was unchanged and therefore only the suffix changed. |
George T. Greenfield (154) 736 posts |
Thanks for clarifying. |