General :  K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
General discussion about K-Meleon 
1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: CaptnBlack
Date: August 18, 2006 12:02AM


Was there any changes to the K-meleon executable included in the 1.0.1 update ?

I already updated all files (components, chrome, and other dlls in KM root).

Should I update anyway, even if I updated all other files to 1.8.0.6 ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: guenter
Date: August 18, 2006 12:16AM

no no faults in k-m - it is merely a GRE update.

There is a patch in GRE update. So Dorians update of GRE is best (not Mozilla.org)
Chrome is adapted to k-m & maybe keep original?
Chrome will be updated for 1.8.0.7 if good reasdons to change will be found.

Your update is also good - it merely does not cover two minor bugs.
I would keep it instead of official ;-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: gufi
Date: August 18, 2006 12:40AM

I liked the old Download page. I could see the # of downloads and download history easily with 1 click.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: CaptnBlack
Date: August 18, 2006 10:12AM

Thank you guenter for the info.

I updated the chrome by comparing the new chrome to K-meleons original, and only included files that were in the original.

Were there any significant changes to files inside the jars ?
Is there a list of modified files I should change ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: guenter
Date: August 18, 2006 12:35PM

CaptnBlack,
I do it the same way. An exact list of changes is my to do for next chrome.
(this is for all S-M chrome jars. i tried to time stamp all files that are in Jars that are likely to get improvements = i am lazy and do not want to do work again, if i can avoid it = I replace only if a file is newer than the time stamp ).

comm.jar: The three viewsource files in comm/content/navigator are adapted or made for k-m & not S-M, They cannot be replaced with unaltered S-M files.
They only have the same name.
Improvements only possible in files with newer time stamp.

pippki.jar: All ",help" strings (buttons) are removed preferably with an editor that can work such changes for several files at a time. There are also little code changes in that jar. It was just done not recorded. Best keep the complete jar unless You find files that are newer than the ones time stamped by me. Strings starting with parent.init.Panel are cut out e. g. from pref-masterpass.xul parent.initPanel('chrome://pippki/content/pref-masterpass.xul'); they are from Xul-privacy masterpass and certificates which we still use. Console2 will tell You exact file and location after You used item. Other changes have been done but are not used now. We could probably use more of the S-M certificates dialog but i do not know what the items do and how to test them ( provided they work with k-m ).
Improvements only possible in files newer than time stamp.

classic.jar toolbar.css and neterror.css were altered. Best keep the whole jar.
Improvements are unlikly - files not time-stamped.

toolkit.jar: console.xul and js were alterd but are not used any more.
You can however still access the function via command "javascript:"
netError.xhtml is altered.
Dorian has also alered files after me. which?
to do: Console2 credits must be added to about.xhtml.
Improvements only possible in files newer than time stamp.

p. s. You can probably update by script; I did for 1.7.8

rem idea by Andrew

rem "xcopy /U /Y /R <Mozilla 1.7.8 directory> <K-meleon equivalent directory>"

rem or with xxcpy.exe which is more powerfull.

rem xxcopy /DA:2005-05-31 /U /Y /R "c:\Program Files\My_Directory\" "c:\Program Files\My_Directory2\"
rem xxcopy /U /Y /R /D /S "C:/appgifs7d_1.g/chrome1.7.8/" "C:/appgifs7d_1.g/chrome/"

rem the commands were used to update chrome unpacked for update.
rem the command sequence updates only with files that are newer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: CaptnBlack
Date: August 18, 2006 05:47PM

Thank you for the information.

I've been using K-meleon with all SM files for a while now, I've not noticed any abnormal behaviors yet.

I'll replace the indicated files with the older versions.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: guenter
Date: August 18, 2006 08:05PM

why do/change anything if You are satisfied? I would be too lazy :-)

We only do all that to reduce chrome size.
But old machines profit more from that reduction.
I have a p500 :-) thats why i want reduced chrome size.

the 3 view source files are only usefull when You use console2...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: rmn
Date: August 18, 2006 08:11PM

A little info: the chrome in 1.0 and 1.0.1 are exactly the same. The only files that change are:

js3250.dll
components\gklayout.dll, gkplugin.dll, necko.dll
defaults\pref\kmeleon.js

It's really just a Gecko update. (Haven't checked, but I'm guessing kmeleon.js is only updated for the version number.)

And (as Günter pointed out) Dorian said that the Gecko that comes with K-Meleon 1.0.x includes patches for two Mozilla bugs: BTS [bug=314]bug 314[/bug] and [bug=618]bug 618[/bug].

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: rmn
Date: August 18, 2006 08:23PM

guenter wrote:
>
> An exact list of changes is my to do
> for next chrome.
> (this is for all S-M chrome jars. i tried to time stamp all
> files that are in Jars that are likely to get improvements =
> i am lazy and do not want to do work again, if i can avoid it
> = I replace only if a file is newer than the time stamp ).

If you want to see the differences between the files, something like WinMerge would help a lot.

And yeah, a chrome update instruction would be really helpful. See the "cannot build with VC6" thread to see how we're trying to update the build documentation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: vpowell
Date: August 20, 2006 06:58AM

@rmn
The only change in
\k-meleon\defaults\pref[b]kmeleon.js[/b]
is changing line 6 from:
pref("general.useragent.vendorSub", "1.0");

to:
pref("general.useragent.vendorSub", "1.01");

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: 1.0.1 update is it necessary ?
Posted by: vpowell
Date: August 20, 2006 07:38AM

@rmn
in \k-meleon\components\necko.dll I can see the 3 changes but,
being human I can only read one of them:

in line 4 (there is a short binary change)
in line 1065 rv:1.8.0.5 changes to rv:1.8.0.6
in line 1080 (there is a short binary change)

Options: ReplyQuote


K-Meleon forum is powered by Phorum.