1719852 - bug 1712633 enabled MOZ_REQUIRE_SIGNING for esr

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Description

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

This is from code inspection rather than looking at an actual build, but it seems to me the changes in 1712633 mean the next esr will have MOZ_REQUIRE_SIGNING enabled (it matches is_release_or_beta, and no longer disables the signing requirement in mozconfig).

Comment 1

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Attachment: Bug 1719852 - Remove leftovers from bug 1712633.

Comment 2

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Attachment: Bug 1719852 - Disable MOZ_REQUIRE_SIGNING on esr.

It was enabled in bug 1712633 by mistake.

Because there wasn't a way to distinguish esr yet, we add one, and while
at it, expose it to the build system.

Comment 3

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Attachment: Bug 1719852 - Derive addon sideload default from milestone rather than update channel.

Comment 4

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/248b19f1b5e6
Remove leftovers from bug 1712633. r=jcristau
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/f087d46c2b86
Disable MOZ_REQUIRE_SIGNING on esr. r=jcristau,firefox-build-system-reviewers,mhentges
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/e5224e804fa8
Derive addon sideload default from milestone rather than update channel. r=firefox-build-system-reviewers,mhentges

Comment 5

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Should we add an AppConstants for this as well?

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/modules/AppConstants.jsm#26

Should I open a separate bug?

Comment 6

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

(In reply to Mike Kaply [:mkaply] from comment #5)

Should we add an AppConstants for this as well?

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/modules/AppConstants.jsm#26

Should I open a separate bug?

Sure, please do.

Comment 7

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Comment on attachment 9230817 [details]
Bug 1719852 - Remove leftovers from bug 1712633.

ESR Uplift Approval Request

• If this is not a sec:{high,crit} bug, please state case for ESR consideration: The bug affects esr specifically.
• User impact if declined: Firefox requires addons to be signed, which is not expected on esr.
• Fix Landed on Version: 92
• Risk to taking this patch: Low
• Why is the change risky/not risky? (and alternatives if risky): build change only.
• String or UUID changes made by this patch:

Comment 8

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Should this land on beta too for consistency?

Comment 9

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

I think if you put it on beta it will go in ESR91. I don't think we have a 91 ESR branch yet.

So it should just go in beta.

but yes, It should go in both 91s.

Comment 10

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

Comment on attachment 9230817 [details]
Bug 1719852 - Remove leftovers from bug 1712633.

What Mike said, it'll get into esr91 by way of beta.

Comment 11

[Dorel Luca [:dluca]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/248b19f1b5e6
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f087d46c2b86
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e5224e804fa8

Comment 12

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc (PTO until April 26)]

Comment on attachment 9230817 [details]
Bug 1719852 - Remove leftovers from bug 1712633.

Approved for 91 beta 3, thanks.

Comment 13

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc (PTO until April 26)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/89d53edece4c
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/9770d3bc95ca
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/3ce9a0ba8745

Comment 14

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

Mike, as far as I can tell, ESR is now always defined, either empty or 1. Would it make sense to do something like the below so that when we're not on ESR the macro is undefined instead, for consistency with the other similar macros NIGHTLY_BUILD and RELEASE_OR_BETA?

-        is_esr=app_version_display.endswith("esr"),
+        is_esr=app_version_display.endswith("esr") or None,

Comment 15

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Sure.

Comment 16

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

I'll fix this in 1720389