213920 - (firefox-rpm-repackage) [meta] Propose RPM-based repository (Fedora, Red Hat, Opensuse, etc)

Status: REOPENED

(Release Engineering :: Release Automation, enhancement)

Description

[u48850]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

I think that mozilla.org should provide RPMs for distributions other than Red
Hat, too. Mandrake, Suse and Lycoris at least. I know that several RPMs can be
found on the WWW, but it would be easier for users to find them and as a result
the number of downloads woulds increase, which would look nice!

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[u48850]

'would' :-)

Comment 2

[u48850]

Opera offers RPMs for
1. RedHat 7 / Mandrake 8
2. RedHat 8 / SuSE 8.1 / Mandrake 9 
3. SuSE / Debian / Others

Comment 3

[u48850]

At the moment Mozilla is number 9 on the Top Downloads list at
http://www.rpmseek.com. This is probably a significant number and these
downloads should improve our download statistics! 

Comment 4

[Robert Mohr]

I use Debian, and I'm not willing to mess up apt by using an rpm.  If
mozilla.org decides to provide rpms for rpm-based distros, it should also
provide debs for Debian-based distros.  These files should also be accessible in
archives online so that apt-get (Debian), apt-get (for rpm-based distros), and
urpmi can access them.

Comment 5

[Andrew Overholt [:overholt]]

Do we provide RPMs for any distros anymore?

Comment 7

[Aurélien Lubert]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - part 1: prepare the repackaging files related to rpm r=gabriel

Comment 8

[Aurélien Lubert]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - part 2: add a common module to use with both deb and rpm r=gabriel

These functions come from the deb repackaging sub-module and were altered to
allow multiple repackaging system.

Comment 9

[Aurélien Lubert]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - part 3: add the rpm choice for the mach repackage action r=gabriel

The test_rpm is mostly based on the test_deb file.

Comment 10

[Aurélien Lubert]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - part 4: modify the desktop file generation to manage the Exec key r=gabriel

Previously, the desktop file was generated by using the DEB_PKG_NAME build
variable which contains the binary name (eg. firefox-nightly). But this binary
may not be in the PATH environment variable and the desktop file will not show
the application or the wrong one.

This patch will allow to customize the Exec command without change the behavior
of the debian repackaging, until this one migrate to the utils sub-module.

Comment 11

[Andrew Overholt [:overholt]]

As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

Comment 12

[Aurélien Lubert]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - part 4: use the common repackaging module with debian r=gabriel

The prefix DEB_ was fully removed from the template variables.

The tests which are already tested in test_utils were removed from test_debian.

Comment 13

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

(In reply to Andrew Overholt [:overholt] from comment #11)

As a former Fedora packager, I remember there being robust guidelines for .spec files. Is what we're using here at the intersection of various distros' policies? Should we take a look to see if we're missing any best practices?

FWIW I checked out a few download/releases pages for other Browsers and they tend to target Fedora/openSUSE. Also, it seems if it works in Fedora there's a good chance it works on Fedora/Rocky/RHEL.

I am looking through the Fedora Packaging Guidelines (it seems to be one of the most detailed and well maintained sets of guidelines.) Most of them should be useful on RPM-based distributions (specially ones downstream of Fedora.)

I was also looking at the openSUSE Packaging Guidelines (which is not Fedora based.)

That seems like a good starting point.

Comment 14

[Xavier Garnier]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - add Dockerfile for rpm repackaging r=gabriel

Comment 15

[Xavier Garnier]

Attachment: Bug 213920 - Add taskcluster task to build rpm package r=gabriel

Comment 16

[Phabricator Automation]

Comment on attachment 9468022 [details]
Bug 213920 - Add taskcluster task to build rpm package r=gabriel

Revision D239350 was moved to bug 1950505. Setting attachment 9468022 [details] to obsolete.

Comment 17

[Phabricator Automation]

Comment on attachment 9462514 [details]
Bug 213920 - part 1: prepare the repackaging files related to rpm r=gabriel

Revision D235974 was moved to bug 1950511. Setting attachment 9462514 [details] to obsolete.

Comment 18

[Phabricator Automation]

Comment on attachment 9462515 [details]
Bug 213920 - part 2: add a common module to use with both deb and rpm r=gabriel

Revision D235975 was moved to bug 1950511. Setting attachment 9462515 [details] to obsolete.

Comment 19

[Phabricator Automation]

Comment on attachment 9462516 [details]
Bug 213920 - part 3: add the rpm choice for the mach repackage action r=gabriel

Revision D235976 was moved to bug 1950511. Setting attachment 9462516 [details] to obsolete.

Comment 20

[Phabricator Automation]

Comment on attachment 9466779 [details]
Bug 213920 - part 4: use the common repackaging module with debian r=gabriel

Revision D238575 was moved to bug 1950511. Setting attachment 9466779 [details] to obsolete.

Comment 21

[Gabriel Bustamante [:gabriel]]

Attachment: WIP: Bug 213920 - Upload firefox .rpm package to the Mozilla archive

Comment 22

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/05b57c7fe5d2
add Dockerfile for rpm repackaging r=gabriel,jcristau

Comment 23

[Serban Stanca [:SerbanS]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05b57c7fe5d2

Comment 24

[Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) [:RokeJulianLockhart]]

#c23

Resolution: --- → FIXED

Where should a user acquire a package file from?

Comment 25

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

This isn't done yet.

Comment 26

[Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) [:RokeJulianLockhart]]

#c10

Previously, the desktop file was generated by using the DEB_PKG_NAME build variable which contains the binary name (eg. firefox-nightly).

On behalf of those who have supported connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/provide-native-non-deb-linux-packages-for-firefox-nightly/idc-p/28875, does this encompass non-release editions, like Developer and Nightly? If not, I'll file a separate issue, to track it (or have its rejection at least demonstrate whether). If rationale is of use, discourse.mozilla.org/t/143785/3 is an example.

Comment 27

[BugBot [:suhaib / :marco/ :calixte]]

Clear a needinfo that is pending on an inactive user.

Inactive users most likely will not respond; if the missing information is essential and cannot be collected another way, the bug maybe should be closed as INCOMPLETE.

For more information, please visit BugBot documentation.

Comment 28

[Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) [:RokeJulianLockhart]]

The assignee should not be inactive, so I have redirected it. (Triage owner, please see #c26.)

Comment 29

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

does this encompass non-release editions, like Developer and Nightly?

Yes.

Comment 30

[Johan Lorenzo [:jlorenzo]]

Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated)
[Why is this notable]: Same reason as the .deb package we shipped in Firefox 122.0. It was part of the 122.0 release note.
[Affects Firefox for Android]: No
[Suggested wording]: To be determined.
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: To be added.

Comment 31

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Done for nightly:
https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2026/01/19/introducing-mozillas-firefox-nightly-rpm-package-for-rpm-based-linux-distributions/

Well done Bastien & the team``

Comment 32

[Pascal Chevrel (relman team) -> :pascalc]

Note added to Firefox Nightly release notes with this wording:

Firefox Nightly now ships with a new .rpm package for Linux users on Red Hat, Fedora, openSUSE, and other RPM-based distributions.

The note will be part of the Nightly release notes for 3 cycles (149-151).
When we extend the support to the release channel, a new release note request will be needed.

Comment 33

[Bastien Orivel [:eijebong]]

Same as nightly, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213920#c32

Comment 34

[Dianna Smith [:diannaS]]

is there an article to link?

Comment 35

[Bastien Orivel [:eijebong]]

We don't have an article to link for release, no.

Comment 36

[Jan Brasna [:janbrasna]]

While there is no blog post for release, there is now this sumo KB article updated https://support.mozilla.org/kb/install-firefox-linux including the RPM steps from bug 1963350 that might be a good destination from the note.

Comment 37

[Jan Brasna [:janbrasna]]

Currently download surfaces on firefox.com when detecting Linux UA offer:

 "Using Debian, Ubuntu or any Debian-based distribution? You can set up our [APT repository] instead."

I've opened https://github.com/mozmeao/springfield/issues/1323 if anyone wants to offer a good suggestion for update.

Would something like:

"Using Ubuntu, Debian or any Debian-based distribution? You can set up our [APT repository] instead. For Fedora, RHEL-based distributions or openSUSE there is [RPM repository] available."

or

"Set up our [APT or RPM repository] if you're using Ubuntu, Debian, any Debian-based distribution, openSUSE, Fedora or any RHEL-based distribution."

sound correct? (I'm leaving out Rocky/CentOS expecting users will know the base similar to Mint(?))

Comment 38

[Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) [:RokeJulianLockhart]]

Does this incorporate Thunderbird, or solely Firefox? I'd like to file a new ticket for TB, if solely FF.

Comment 39

[Andrew Halberstadt [:ahal]]

Probably best to file a new bug for Thunderbird yeah.

Comment 40

[Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) [:RokeJulianLockhart]]

Thanks. I've filed id=2041417.