114694 - update installer for 0.9.7 release

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Build Config, defect, P1)

Description

[Jon Granrose]

Per the checklist, we need to update makeall.pl to have the correct version for
0.9.7.  I'm assigning this to kysmith, but curt feel free to take this if you'd
rather do it.  This needs to be changed on the branch after it is cut and on the
trunk.

On the 0.9.7 branch it should be "0.9.7"
On the trunk post097 it should be "0.9.7+"

This should be two patches and both should be landed before the bug is closed.

Comment 1

[Jon Granrose]

Let's put the Mac installer changes here also.

Need to change config.ini_tmpl and Mozilla.rsrc on both the 0.9.7 branch and on
the trunk to "0.9.7" and "0.9.7+" respectively.

So that should be 2 patches for win32, and 4 (or 2 patches of 2 files each) for
the mac before this bug can be closed.

Comment 2

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to 0.9.7

Comment 3

[kysmith0 (gone)]

Attachment: win32 branch diffs

here is what we need to change on the 0.9.7 branch

Comment 4

[kysmith0 (gone)]

Attachment: win32 trunk diffs

here is what we need to change on the trunk

Comment 5

[Jon Granrose]

sr=granrose assuming we get an r= from curt.

Comment 6

[Jon Granrose]

thanks curt.  we're ready to go as soon as the tree is open.

Comment 7

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

r= for both Windows patches.

When Kyle has patches for the Mac installer, it would be good to have jj r=
those, I think.  (And I don't even know how you create a patch for the
Mozilla.rsrc since it is a binary?)

As long as we're at it, we'd just as well use this bug to track branching the
Linux  installer, also.  I need to confirm what is required there (I haven't
seen linux on any checklist)and I'll add instructions to this bug.  I don't know
if Kyle or another engineer will be doing those patches?

Comment 8

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

r= for both Windows patches.

When Kyle has patches for the Mac installer, it would be good to have jj r=
those, I think.  (And I don't even know how you create a patch for the
Mozilla.rsrc since it is a binary?)

As long as we're at it, we'd just as well use this bug to track branching the
Linux  installer, also.  I need to confirm what is required there (I haven't
seen linux on any checklist)and I'll add instructions to this bug.  I don't know
if Kyle or another engineer will be doing those patches?

Comment 9

[kysmith0 (gone)]

I will do the linux stuff too, might as well since I am doing the other 
platforms. 

Comment 10

[kysmith0 (gone)]

Can someone check in my 2 attachments for the win stuff please? TIA.

Comment 11

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

I checked in the two Windows changes--even though I don't know what TIA means. 
(Time Is Archane.  Till I'm Able.  Try It Again...)

Comment 12

[kysmith0 (gone)]

TIA = Thanks In Advance...thanks dude! :-)

Comment 13

[Jon Granrose]

this bug needs to be fixed asap so we can ship on Friday.

Comment 14

[J.J. Enser]

looks like it's already fixed (Curt checked in Kyle's patches).
one of them should mark this bug fixed after confirmation

Comment 15

[Jon Granrose]

loan's working on the linux changes still.

Comment 16

[kysmith0 (gone)]

Did the mac installer changes get taken care of in another defect? 

Comment 17

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

I don't think so.  I believe we still need mac and linux changes both.

Comment 18

[lpham]

Attachment: Update Mozilla and Netscape install version for the TRUNK

Waiting for r= so I can check it in.  Loan

Comment 19

[lpham]

Comment on attachment 62431 [details]
Update Mozilla and Netscape install version for the TRUNK

obsolete this one.  I typed a wrong patch name

Comment 20

[lpham]

Attachment: Update Linux install for the TRUNK

Waiting for r=

Comment 21

[lpham]

Attachment: Update Linux install version for the BRANCH

Need r=/sr= so I can check it in.

Comment 22

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

Comment on attachment 62433 [details]
Update Linux install for the TRUNK

This looks good for the trunk, but we still need the branch version, yes?

Comment 23

[Jon Granrose]

Comment on attachment 62433 [details]
Update Linux install for the TRUNK

are we sure that the version string(s) updated by deliver.pl can handle '+'?

Comment 24

[Jon Granrose]

sr=granrose for both linux patches assuming we're sure that deliver.pl can
handle '+' in the version string on the trunk (we've never done that before).

Comment 25

[Samir Gehani]

XPInstall is not designed to handle "extra" characters in the version string.  I
belive it parses the values as integers.  If this is going in it should be
tested by running a test xpi with such a version string and ensuring it updates
a previously registered package correctly.  I don't think we should stuff
non-numeric chars in the XPInstall package version string (except for the
delimiter period ('.') char of course).  CC'ing dveditz for an opinion.

Comment 26

[Jon Granrose]

removed my sr, spoke too soon, noticed some problems.  For starters, we
shouldn't check in the "+" for the netscape deliver.pl on the branch.  Since
we've never tested it, and have to ship 097 builds tomorrow, we shouldn't risk it.

Also, the N6 version should have the same format across versions.  For 6.2 it
was 6.20.0, for 6.2.1, it was 6.20.1, so it should remain 6.20.1, not 6.21.  The
reason we had to use 6.20 is because we had to use 6.10 and we had to use 6.10
because we had a 6.01 and smartupdate sees 6.01 and 6.1 as the same number.

Comment 27

[lpham]

Comment on attachment 62436 [details] [diff] [review]
Update Linux install version for the BRANCH

Need to resummit this patch for the branch

Comment 28

[lpham]

Attachment: New patch for the Linux install version on the BRANCH

Update the netscape version to 6.20.1 and no + sign on the branch.  Need r/sr
again please

Comment 29

[Jon Granrose]

sr=granrose for the updated branch patch.

you'll need a new patch for the trunk also with no "+" and 6.20.1 rather than 6.21

Comment 30

[lpham]

Comment on attachment 62433 [details]
Update Linux install for the TRUNK

Obsolete this patch. Will resummit a new patch for the TRUNK

Comment 31

[lpham]

Attachment: Update to 6.20.1 and remove + sign for the TRUNK

Need r=/sr= for this patch

Comment 32

[Jon Granrose]

Comment on attachment 62455 [details] [diff] [review]
Update to 6.20.1 and remove + sign for the TRUNK

sr=granrose for updated trunk patch.

Comment 33

[lpham]

Checked in both patches for the trunk and 097 branch (unix install).  I leave 
this bug open because we are waiting for Mac.

Loan

Comment 34

[kysmith0 (gone)]

OK win32 files checked in, linux files checked in. For the mac we have checked 
in changes for the file mozilla/xpinstall/wizard/mac/rsrc/Mozilla.rsrc but we 
have not dealt with the mozilla/xpinstall/wizard/mac/macbuild/config.ini_tmpl, 
we are working on figuring out what to change exactly there but may not have an 
answer within the next few days. We haven't changed this file in a while so not 
changing it has not stopped us from shipping before and I don't think it should 
stop us now. 

Comment 35

[Daniel Veditz [:dveditz]]

If 6.2 was 6.20.0 because 6.01 was 6.01 (and not 6.0.1) then 6.21 probably
should have been 6.21.0  Too bad we didn't catch this at 6.1 and stick with 6.1
-- the actual versions still would have differed by the appended buildID.

Oh well.

The plus for xpinstall version wouldn't have mattered, it would have delimited
the atoi() conversion and we'd have gone on to the next '.'

Comment 36

[Jon Granrose]

what do we need to do about the mac installer changes so we're ready for 0.9.8?

Comment 37

[kysmith0 (gone)]

We need to understand how the file 
mozilla/xpinstall/wizard/mac/macbuild/config.ini_tmpl
fits into the installer, then we can understand how to set the value of the 
"Version" parameter in there. 

Comment 38

[kysmith0 (gone)]

Need to find out specifics for mac for 0.9.8. JJ sent out an email last week to
the ex-XPinstall group members asking for info. 

Comment 39

[Curt Patrick (gone)]

I have been researching this with the alumni installer members and have a pretty
good picture of what is going on.  It is not consistant across platform nor
across mozilla vs netscape so I've been holding off on definitive instructions
until I'm confident of a plan that will address all fronts.

Comment 40

[kysmith0 (gone)]

moving out to mozilla0.9.9

Comment 41

[kysmith0 (gone)]

MOving to mozilla 1.0

Comment 42

[scottputterman]

Moving Netscape owned 0.9.9 and 1.0 bugs that don't have an nsbeta1, nsbeta1+,
topembed, topembed+, Mozilla0.9.9+ or Mozilla1.0+ keyword.  Please send any
questions or feedback about this to [e-mail].  You can search for
"Moving bugs not scheduled for a project" to quickly delete this bugmail.

Comment 43

[J.J. Enser]

Kyle, I think you can close this bug since it was originally intended to track
the 0.9.7 version string update... hopefully fixed by now :-)

We should have a separate bug to follow-up with the issue regarding how to
update the "Version=" line in config.ini_tmpl on mac, and indicate this bug
(114694) as a reference

Comment 44

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

Comment on attachment 62001 [details] [diff] [review]
win32 branch diffs

obsoleting old approved and landed patches so they don't look like approved
changes waiting to land.

Comment 45

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

Comment on attachment 62002 [details] [diff] [review]
win32 trunk diffs

a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to the 1.0 trunk

Comment 46

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

oops, bad paste. sorry. obsoleting old patches.

Comment 47

[kysmith0 (gone)]

resolving fixed. 

Comment 48

[Jon Granrose]

what's the bug number to resolve the question of what to put in the
config.ini_tmpl?  or do we know that and a separate bug is not required?

Comment 49

[Samir Gehani]

Regarding comment 48: JJ and I discussed _what_ to generate in the config.ini
from the config.ini_tmpl last Friday, April 12, 2002.  

Specifically, if we are shipping version 1.0.1d.0
(release.revision.fix/dev-stage.internal-stage) per the first `vers' resource in
the mozilla (or netscape) binary then the version we generate into the
LegacyCheck section of the config.ini would be the *same* version: 1.0.1d.0. 
Note that ``fix/dev-stage'' is our own format to capture the fix and dev-stage
where dev-stage can be any of the following in descending order from `r' to `a'
such that `r' > `a':
  r => release
  d => development
  a => alpha
  b => beta

Trust this helps.

Comment 50

[Samir Gehani]

Comment 49 erratum:

``in descending order from `r' to `a' such that `r' > `a':''
should read
``in descending order from `r' to `b' such that `r' > `b':''
                                  ^^^                 ^^^

Comment 51

[Samir Gehani]

Dammit.  I got it wrong again.  Here's the order: 
`d' < `a' < `b' < `r' (from the code this time :o))

Comment 52

[J.J. Enser]

Samir, thanks for your additional input on this topic. I'll add it to the notes
I took during our recent phone talk, and will publish and share the result with
other Release team members.

Comment 53

[Jon Granrose]

verified fixed.  thanks for the clarification, Samir.