MSIX packaging
Categories
(Firefox :: Installer, enhancement, P1)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: rachel, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 4 open bugs)
Details
|
||
Updated•4 years ago
|
|
|
||
Updated•4 years ago
|
|
|
||
Updated•4 years ago
|
|
||
Updated•3 years ago
|
|
Reporter | |
Updated•3 years ago
|
|
|
||
Comment 1•3 years ago
|
||
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
|
||
Updated•3 years ago
|
|
||
Comment 2•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #1)
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
How will the beta, developer, and nightly versions be distributed in the store then?
|
|
||
Comment 3•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to nawape1953 from comment #2)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #1)
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
How will the beta, developer, and nightly versions be distributed in the store then?
The plan of record is to ship only Firefox Release in the Microsoft Store for the foreseeable future. There's no particular obstacle to shipping Beta in the Store, but we don't intend to do so on any particular timeline. The same is true for Devedition.
Firefox Nightly with langpacks is not supported, so there's no technical path to distributing Nightly in the Store without significant work.
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #3)
(In reply to nawape1953 from comment #2)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #1)
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
How will the beta, developer, and nightly versions be distributed in the store then?
The plan of record is to ship only Firefox Release in the Microsoft Store for the foreseeable future. There's no particular obstacle to shipping Beta in the Store, but we don't intend to do so on any particular timeline. The same is true for Devedition.
Firefox Nightly with langpacks is not supported, so there's no technical path to distributing Nightly in the Store without significant work.
Okay, so Beta/Dev aren't being shipped for no reason beyond "just because" and not for any other reason?
If there isn't any solid reasoning for not shipping Beta/Dev in the Microsoft Store, then I personally think that decision is just silly.
|
|
||
Comment 5•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to vufujola from comment #4)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #3)
(In reply to nawape1953 from comment #2)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #1)
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
How will the beta, developer, and nightly versions be distributed in the store then?
The plan of record is to ship only Firefox Release in the Microsoft Store for the foreseeable future. There's no particular obstacle to shipping Beta in the Store, but we don't intend to do so on any particular timeline. The same is true for Devedition.
Firefox Nightly with langpacks is not supported, so there's no technical path to distributing Nightly in the Store without significant work.
Okay, so Beta/Dev aren't being shipped for no reason beyond "just because" and not for any other reason?
If there isn't any solid reasoning for not shipping Beta/Dev in the Microsoft Store, then I personally think that decision is just silly.
Please keep this civil: I didn't say anything about reasoning one way or the other.
In this case, the most significant reason that I see is to allow us to manage our presence in the Store. We want to have exactly one Firefox show up in searches until the usage and star ratings are established. Once it's clear which Firefox is the mainline/stable release, it's less risky to also publish Beta. I won't speak to anything about Devedition, since it targets a very different type of user.
|
||
Comment 6•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #5)
(In reply to vufujola from comment #4)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #3)
(In reply to nawape1953 from comment #2)
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #1)
A note about how we propose to handle l10n for these MSIX packages. We're not intending to distribute 100 MSIX packages. We intend to distribute one MSIX package that contains 100 langpacks, just like we do for snap/flatpak. We intend to only produce Release MSIXes (although we're likely to have also do Beta for testing) so that we can a) depend on the langpacks and b) have the multi-locale settings enabled.
We are aware that this is not ideal, since there are parts of the browser not covered by langpacks, but these parts are small and require different types of work to address.
How will the beta, developer, and nightly versions be distributed in the store then?
The plan of record is to ship only Firefox Release in the Microsoft Store for the foreseeable future. There's no particular obstacle to shipping Beta in the Store, but we don't intend to do so on any particular timeline. The same is true for Devedition.
Firefox Nightly with langpacks is not supported, so there's no technical path to distributing Nightly in the Store without significant work.
Okay, so Beta/Dev aren't being shipped for no reason beyond "just because" and not for any other reason?
If there isn't any solid reasoning for not shipping Beta/Dev in the Microsoft Store, then I personally think that decision is just silly.
Please keep this civil: I didn't say anything about reasoning one way or the other.
In this case, the most significant reason that I see is to allow us to manage our presence in the Store. We want to have exactly one Firefox show up in searches until the usage and star ratings are established. Once it's clear which Firefox is the mainline/stable release, it's less risky to also publish Beta. I won't speak to anything about Devedition, since it targets a very different type of user.
I don't think they meant any harm with their comment.
Have you found that most users are unable to differentiate from regular Firefox and Beta/Dev Firefox? Regarding your decision to only put the release version of Firefox in the Microsoft Store, I totally understand. It makes more sense for the brand and tech-illiterate users who might not understand the difference. It simplifies the experience and makes things better for most end users.
Regardless, the future is going to be great now! Cheers!
|
||
Comment 7•3 years ago
|
||
If the Beta and Developer releases shall not be distributed via the Microsoft Store because that shall improve the ease of maintenance of the reputation of Firefox brand, this should not prevent these packages being distributed as MSIX packages anyway, so if they are not already, please do that. If they are, they should be the preferred format for installation of those editions of Firefox, because managment of them personally and organisationally is much more easy than managment of Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages and executable binaries (EXE)s.
Also, submission of these packages without the possibility of reputational damage to the Firefox brand is easily possible: unlisted submission of them (which is what http://microsoft.com/store/productId/9NZVDKPMR9RD has been submitted as) shall ensure that technologically ignorant users do not use other versions of the browser, because they should not be anyway, yet if the hyperlink to the package shall be publically provided to people that are desiring evaluation of beta and developmental releases, it shall allow people that are technologically competent to test releases much more easily.
Numorous other benefits/advantages to distribution via the Microsoft Store (or any package manager really) are available, and although winget does provide many of these, and would especially if the packages that were hosted via it were MSIX packages, the Microsoft Store is incredibly useful. Consequently, please do evaluate your decision again, because I am not merely confident, but certain, that it is erroneous.
|
|
||
Comment 8•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to BEEDELL ROKE JULIAN LOCKHART from comment #7)
If the Beta and Developer releases shall not be distributed via the Microsoft Store because that shall improve the ease of maintenance of the reputation of Firefox brand, this should not prevent these packages being distributed as MSIX packages anyway, so if they are not already, please do that. If they are, they should be the preferred format for installation of those editions of Firefox, because managment of them personally and organisationally is much more easy than managment of Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages and executable binaries (EXE)s.
We do produce MSIX packages signed by Mozilla and available outside of the Microsoft Store: see http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/94.0b9/win64/multi/ and similar packages.
Also, submission of these packages without the possibility of reputational damage to the Firefox brand is easily possible: unlisted submission of them (which is what http://microsoft.com/store/productId/9NZVDKPMR9RD has been submitted as) shall ensure that technologically ignorant users do not use other versions of the browser, because they should not be anyway, yet if the hyperlink to the package shall be publically provided to people that are desiring evaluation of beta and developmental releases, it shall allow people that are technologically competent to test releases much more easily.
Unlisted store listings is a fine notion: I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1738303 to track doing this.
Numorous other benefits/advantages to distribution via the Microsoft Store (or any package manager really) are available, and although winget does provide many of these, and would especially if the packages that were hosted via it were MSIX packages, the Microsoft Store is incredibly useful. Consequently, please do evaluate your decision again, because I am not merely confident, but certain, that it is erroneous.
There are downsides to MSIX packages, too: we have various in-product issues that we haven't addressed yet, and are finding more by the day.
In any case: we hear your desire for MSIX packages, appreciate your suggestions, and will get to the glorious future as quickly as we can. Please continue to use the MSIX packages and file issues that you're having. And, always, patches appreciated!
|
|
||
Comment 9•3 years ago
|
||
I am very thankful.
|
|
||
Comment 10•3 years ago
|
||
For automatic submission to package-managers such as winget, are http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/latest/, http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/latest-beta/, and http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/latest-esr/ supportive of installation of MSIX packages? I am not able to discern whether they are.
|
||
Comment 11•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #8)
(In reply to BEEDELL ROKE JULIAN LOCKHART from comment #7)
If the Beta and Developer releases shall not be distributed via the Microsoft Store because that shall improve the ease of maintenance of the reputation of Firefox brand, this should not prevent these packages being distributed as MSIX packages anyway, so if they are not already, please do that. If they are, they should be the preferred format for installation of those editions of Firefox, because managment of them personally and organisationally is much more easy than managment of Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages and executable binaries (EXE)s.
We do produce MSIX packages signed by Mozilla and available outside of the Microsoft Store: see http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/94.0b9/win64/multi/ and similar packages.
Also, submission of these packages without the possibility of reputational damage to the Firefox brand is easily possible: unlisted submission of them (which is what http://microsoft.com/store/productId/9NZVDKPMR9RD has been submitted as) shall ensure that technologically ignorant users do not use other versions of the browser, because they should not be anyway, yet if the hyperlink to the package shall be publically provided to people that are desiring evaluation of beta and developmental releases, it shall allow people that are technologically competent to test releases much more easily.
Unlisted store listings is a fine notion: I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1738303 to track doing this.
Numorous other benefits/advantages to distribution via the Microsoft Store (or any package manager really) are available, and although winget does provide many of these, and would especially if the packages that were hosted via it were MSIX packages, the Microsoft Store is incredibly useful. Consequently, please do evaluate your decision again, because I am not merely confident, but certain, that it is erroneous.
There are downsides to MSIX packages, too: we have various in-product issues that we haven't addressed yet, and are finding more by the day.
In any case: we hear your desire for MSIX packages, appreciate your suggestions, and will get to the glorious future as quickly as we can. Please continue to use the MSIX packages and file issues that you're having. And, always, patches appreciated!
Wouldn't unlisting it defeat the point of putting it in the store in the first place?
|
|
||
Comment 12•3 years ago
|
||
It would not. Did I not explain that?
Unlisted submission of them (which is what http://microsoft.com/store/productId/9NZVDKPMR9RD has been submitted as) shall ensure that technologically ignorant users do not use other versions of the browser, because they should not be anyway, yet if the hyperlink to the package shall be publically provided to people that are desiring evaluation of beta and developmental releases, it shall allow people that are technologically competent to test releases much more easily.
|
||
Comment 13•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to BEEDELL ROKE JULIAN LOCKHART from comment #12)
It would not. Did I not explain that?
Unlisted submission of them (which is what http://microsoft.com/store/productId/9NZVDKPMR9RD has been submitted as) shall ensure that technologically ignorant users do not use other versions of the browser, because they should not be anyway, yet if the hyperlink to the package shall be publically provided to people that are desiring evaluation of beta and developmental releases, it shall allow people that are technologically competent to test releases much more easily.
How does it allow testers to "test releases much more easily" though? If it's unlisted, I just don't see the benefit of putting it in the Microsoft Store compared to what we're already doing right now.
|
|
||
Comment 14•3 years ago
|
||
Folks, I'd like to switch discussion to Bug 1738303. I'll reply to #c13 in that ticket.
|
||
Comment 15•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him] from comment #14)
Folks, I'd like to switch discussion to Bug 1738303. I'll reply to #c13 in that ticket.
Okay, that sounds like a plan! Should this bug report be put to rest or closed yet?
|
||
Updated•3 years ago
|
|
||
Comment 17•3 years ago
|
||
Clearing needinfo request, conversation was moved to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1738303.
|
|
||
Updated•2 years ago
|
|
||
Updated•2 years ago
|
Description
•