1799516 - (firefox-deb-repackage) [meta] Ship Firefox Linux releases in deb packages

Status: REOPENED

(Release Engineering :: General, enhancement)

Description

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

There is no Mozilla repository (or deb packages) for people to update and install Firefox via APT on Debian, Ubuntu, and derivatives.

Comment 1

[Jon Buckley [:jbuck]]

I guess two questions here: Should we host our debian repository out of archive.mozilla.org, or another sub-domain? And should we manage it ourselves, or use a managed service like Artifact Registry?

My understanding is that Artifact Registry doesn't support custom domains, so that might force our decision for us? Or we'd need to put something in front of Artifact Registry. Probably also good to look at bandwidth costs for Artifact Registry vs our own load balancers.

Comment 2

[chris valaas [:cvalaas]]

For future reference: jbuck found https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioners/hack-your-own-custom-domains-container-registry which implies we can just put a reverse proxy (and CDN) in front of artifact registry and serve it the same way we do the rest of productdelivery

Comment 3

[Hal Wine [:hwine] use NI!]

The layout on archive.m.o has an impact on other processes and standing practices. The official version should be stored in the normal release build hierarchy.

Reminder: A user accessible package repository is a new service, and an RRA needs to be done prior to any go-live. That can also address the domain question.

Comment 4

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

Attachment: Bug 1799516 - Update firefox bin link to match the name of the .deb package r?jlorenzo,#releng-reviewers

Depends on D167729

Comment 5

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/2678385eb9b2
Update firefox bin link to match the name of the .deb package r=releng-reviewers,jlorenzo

Comment 6

[Cristina Horotan [:chorotan]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2678385eb9b2

Comment 7

[Johan Lorenzo [:jlorenzo]]

Reopening bug for being a meta one.

Comment 8

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

That's my bad, I cloned one of the beetmover bugs here to file a different one and forgot to delete the "blocks" section 🤦‍♂️

Comment 9

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

I linked Bug 1772219 because this might impact users of the Firefox .deb packages when they run apt-get upgrade

Comment 10

[Darkspirit]

What does Chrome differently or does it also suffer from bug 1705217, etc?

Comment 11

[Robin Steuber (they/them) [:bytesized]]

(In reply to Darkspirit from comment #10)

1. What does Chrome differently or does it also suffer from bug 1705217, etc?

They use a fork server that they call the zygote process to launch new processes from in-memory data rather than relying on the files on disk. See this page for more details.

Comment 12

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

(In reply to Robin Steuber (they/them) [:bytesized] from comment #11)

(In reply to Darkspirit from comment #10)

1. What does Chrome differently or does it also suffer from bug 1705217, etc?

They use a fork server that they call the zygote process to launch new processes from in-memory data rather than relying on the files on disk. See this page for more details.

I am getting the feeling that the Nightly .deb builds might not be viable without fixing this.

Comment 13

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

Johan, can you please clarify what's needed from a relnote perspective here?

Comment 14

[Johan Lorenzo [:jlorenzo]]

I'm no expert in release notes. I was thinking of something like:

New: Mozilla's new .deb package for Debian, Ubuntu, and Linux Mint users. See these instructions[add link].

Would an entry like this make sense?