Closed Bug 1140411 Opened 7 years ago Closed 5 years ago

figure out what to do with win64 + stub installers

Categories

(Release Engineering :: Release Automation: Other, defect)

x86_64
Linux
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: bhearsum, Unassigned)

References

Details

Release automation got hung up on the lack of win64 stub installer during 37.0b3. It surprised me a bit that this doesn't exist. Should we be building it for win64? If not, we'll need some release automation changes to cope.
Flags: needinfo?(robert.strong.bugs)
Flags: needinfo?(lmandel)
I think we should likely build the stub installer (as we're going to want this when we do decide to push Win64 to release) but don't know how much work that will be for Rob compared to the amount of work it will be for release automation to cope with their not being a stub installer.

ni Martin and Erin to comment on the need of having a stub installer.
Flags: needinfo?(mbest)
Flags: needinfo?(lmandel)
Flags: needinfo?(elancaster)
(In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #0)
> Release automation got hung up on the lack of win64 stub installer during
> 37.0b3. It surprised me a bit that this doesn't exist. Should we be building
> it for win64? If not, we'll need some release automation changes to cope.
The bare minimum things that need to be done are bouncer will need to accept a new parameter for arch and the stub will need to use that parameter. At that point there may be other changes needed but there shouldn't be too many.

cc'ing bsmedberg to give him a heads up
Flags: needinfo?(robert.strong.bugs)
Also, the fallback page would also need to include the 64 bit full installer.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/installer-help/?channel=nightly&installer_lang=en-US
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (use needinfo to contact me) from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ben Hearsum [:bhearsum] from comment #0)
> > Release automation got hung up on the lack of win64 stub installer during
> > 37.0b3. It surprised me a bit that this doesn't exist. Should we be building
> > it for win64? If not, we'll need some release automation changes to cope.
> The bare minimum things that need to be done are bouncer will need to accept
> a new parameter for arch and the stub will need to use that parameter. At
> that point there may be other changes needed but there shouldn't be too many.

I think Bouncer already has everything it needs. Eg: https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-37.0b3-stub&os=win64&lang=en-US (404 because it doesn't exist though).
rstrong says that altering the code to produce a win64 stub may be a trivial amount of work. If not, this will have to wait until April.
(In reply to Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo) from comment #1)
> I think we should likely build the stub installer (as we're going to want
> this when we do decide to push Win64 to release) but don't know how much
> work that will be for Rob compared to the amount of work it will be for
> release automation to cope with their not being a stub installer.
> 
> ni Martin and Erin to comment on the need of having a stub installer.

It is likely that we will need to have a stub installer than can decided between 64-bit and 32-bit down the line to maximize download time.  A universal installer would double the size of the existing one should we ship both.  We can also have the Firefox Desktop website choice between two installers depending on OS.  I am not aware of a final rollout plan with specific dates, but all these tactics will come into play at some point.
Flags: needinfo?(mbest)
(In reply to Martin Best (:mbest) from comment #6)
> (In reply to Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo) from comment #1)
> > I think we should likely build the stub installer (as we're going to want
> > this when we do decide to push Win64 to release) but don't know how much
> > work that will be for Rob compared to the amount of work it will be for
> > release automation to cope with their not being a stub installer.
> > 
> > ni Martin and Erin to comment on the need of having a stub installer.
> 
> It is likely that we will need to have a stub installer than can decided
> between 64-bit and 32-bit down the line to maximize download time.  A
> universal installer would double the size of the existing one should we ship
> both.  We can also have the Firefox Desktop website choice between two
> installers depending on OS.  I am not aware of a final rollout plan with
> specific dates, but all these tactics will come into play at some point.

Until we have a unified stub installer, is there a reason we don't ship a 32-bit stub that always points at 32-bit, and a 64-bit that always points at 64-bit? Right now, the _only_ way people can get 64-bit is to download the full installer. This was talked about in earlier comments and Rob seems to think it's not much work.

The missing 64-bit stub installer is also hurting our automation. We've had to kick every single beta with 64-bit Windows builds, which often leads to artificial delays in shipping releases.
A win64-specific stub is bug 797208. It's not currently implemented because update orphaning is the higher priority.
(In reply to Benjamin Smedberg  [:bsmedberg] from comment #8)
> A win64-specific stub is bug 797208. It's not currently implemented because
> update orphaning is the higher priority.

Thanks for the clarification!
Flags: needinfo?(elancaster)
We don't want a Win64 stub installer. We want one Windows stub installer that can choose Win32 or Win64 at install time.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
rstrong, this is different from what you told me today.
Flags: needinfo?(robert.strong.bugs)
Correct. This bug was wontfix'd prior to the UX decision from mverdi. I'll reopen this bug after I hear back from cpeterson or cpeterson will reopen.
Flags: needinfo?(robert.strong.bugs)
We do not want a dedicated stub installer for 64-bit Firefox. We want a single stub installer that will silently choose 32-bit or 64-bit Firefox for the user based on their system capabilities.

See bug 797208 for our current plans for the 64-bit Firefox install experience.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Depends on: 797208
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.