Executable Differential Updates
Categories
(Toolkit :: Application Update, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: bzam, Unassigned)
References
Details
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
Steps to reproduce:
I always distribute the current version of the FF ESR. Mostly everything works very well.
Actual results:
If I use the integrated update as local administrator, only a few MB are exchanged and the update takes only a few seconds.
But for different reasons I have to roll out "Firefox Setup XX.Y.Zesr.exe" every time. This takes several minutes.
Expected results:
Are there packages for differential updates between the current full versions?
|
||
Comment 1•5 years ago
|
||
Bugbug thinks this bug should belong to this component, but please revert this change in case of error.
|
||
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to bzam from comment #0)
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0
Steps to reproduce:
I always distribute the current version of the FF ESR. Mostly everything works very well.
Actual results:
If I use the integrated update as local administrator, only a few MB are exchanged and the update takes only a few seconds.
But for different reasons I have to roll out "Firefox Setup XX.Y.Zesr.exe" every time. This takes several minutes.Expected results:
Are there packages for differential updates between the current full versions?
We produce differential updates, but only in our own update format (the "mar" files), which requires special tools to apply.
@bhearsum: thank you very much for the feedback. Is it possible to release an EXE version of the differential updates in the future?
This would speed up the update process for the users very significantly.
|
||
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
I suspect that this would be quite difficult for us to do. We would either have to generate a special type of update as an installer, or we would have to create an installer that could be bundled with a MAR.
Why are you updating users like this? Is there a reason why you don't want to use the built-in updater?
@Kirk Steuber: thank you very much for the feedback.
I work for an organization/company and the policy states that updates must be tested and deployed incrementally.
If there was a way to implement this via GPO I could use the built-in updater.
(At the moment I don't see any way to control the update process. Therefore I use the MSI packages and can control the rollout via software distribution.)
|
|
||
Comment 6•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to bzam from comment #5)
If there was a way to implement this via GPO I could use the built-in updater.
(At the moment I don't see any way to control the update process. Therefore I use the MSI packages and can control the rollout via software distribution.)
There is a way to control the updater process, but unfortunately at the moment it's a bit complicated. The way that you would have to do it is to host your own update server, which would have to serve an update.xml and the necessary MAR files. Then you would have to use the AppUpdateURL Enterprise Policy to point the Firefox installations to that update server. If you want to set this up, let us know and we'd be happy to help.
At some point, we hope to make this easier by introducing an Enterprise Policy for Update Pinning (Bug 1529943). But, unfortunately, that may be a ways off.
Thanks, yes, implementing a policy for updates would make Enterprise's update process much more effective (1529943)
|
||
Comment 8•2 years ago
•
|
||
bzam: You probably already saw this but Enterprise Policy for Update Pinning has since landed.
Closing this since a maintainable alternative now seems to exist and we're unlikely to implement the requested change.
Description
•