Closed
Bug 1286331
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
Create an automated way to upload OS X SDKs to tooltool
Categories
(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)
Firefox Build System
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
INCOMPLETE
People
(Reporter: selenamarie, Assigned: ted)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
This is a bit tricky, but we'd like an automated way to handle this going forward. Please document how one acquires and then uploads the SDK to tooltool for now.
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
https://github.com/mozilla/build-puppet/blob/9fe765367a144baf549ff76ac3f8a440603bf4b3/modules/packages/manifests/xcode.pp#L31 # Different versions of OS X use different versions of Xcode. And # every version of Xcode is its own unique little hell. Of course, # we can't distribute Xcode, but the instructions here should be # sufficient to reproduce what we've done. Note that Apple # frequently deletes "old" stuff, so you may not be able to find # some of the source binaries anymore. Sorry. Apple sucks. Basically, I wouldn't suggest trying to automate it -- the translation of "unique little hell" is "new and different". For the existing versions, it probably makes sense to copy the notes in that file, and then just amend those instructions for later versions.
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Ted, is this documented in some place that someone interested in upgrading the SDKs used for cross-compilation might find it?
Flags: needinfo?(ted)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•6 years ago
|
||
It's not. Essentially all I did to generate these was locate an SDK on my Mac and tar that directory up. We could certainly write a little script (or mach command, even) to make that more straightforward.
Flags: needinfo?(ted)
Comment 4•6 years ago
|
||
I think just writing it down would be enough, so the next person isn't left wondering.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
That's totally reasonable. Is there an existing place where this documentation would fit? We're not very good about writing down how we produced tooltool artifacts.
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
The best I can think of is, somewhere in the code that a dev is most likely to trip across when looking for this -- maybe a comment in a mozocnfig? Sadly, the JSON manifests do not permit a comment :(
Comment hidden (mozreview-request) |
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
Added a useful comment in the mozconfig. Let's leave this open to track adding a mach command like we have for Visual C++ packages.
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
mozreview-review |
Comment on attachment 8817268 [details] bug 1286331 - document how to generate an SDK tarball. (DONTBUILD) https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/97632/#review97948
Attachment #8817268 -
Flags: review?(dustin) → review+
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
Pushed by tmielczarek@mozilla.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/8137e66c6c18 document how to generate an SDK tarball. r=dustin (DONTBUILD)
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8137e66c6c18
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: Task Configuration → mach
Product: Taskcluster → Core
Updated•5 years ago
|
Product: Core → Firefox Build System
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: Mach Core → General
Comment 12•4 years ago
|
||
The leave-open keyword is there and there is no activity for 6 months. :ted, maybe it's time to close this bug?
Flags: needinfo?(ted)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•4 years ago
|
||
Yeah, that's fine.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(ted)
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
Updated•4 years ago
|
Keywords: leave-open
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•