Closed
Bug 298670
Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
Build Firefox tarballs from the installer manifests
Categories
(Toolkit Graveyard :: Build Config, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: benjamin, Assigned: benjamin)
References
Details
Attachments
(4 files, 1 obsolete file)
45.17 KB,
patch
|
chase
:
first-review+
chase
:
approval-aviary1.1a2+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
23.92 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
22.86 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
3.43 KB,
patch
|
benjamin
:
first-review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In order for the update MARs to be accurate, they must be built from the same set of object files that are being shipped in the installer. This patch changes the tarball build system to use the installer manifests when available (keeping the status-quo on mac).
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•18 years ago
|
||
Chase, I'm going to be flying all day tomorrow and taking a personal day Monday, so I hoping that you have the energy to land this or delegate it to someone else. It has been tested on linux but not windows: I don't expect windows difficulties, but it should be tested just to make sure that silly as/cygwin perl or backslash delimiters don't trip us up.
Attachment #187193 -
Flags: first-review?(chase)
Comment 2•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187193 [details] [diff] [review] Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [backed out] Landing this needs to happen asap to test the update mechanism.
Attachment #187193 -
Flags: first-review?(chase)
Attachment #187193 -
Flags: first-review+
Attachment #187193 -
Flags: approval-aviary1.1a2+
Comment 3•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187193 [details] [diff] [review] Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [backed out] Checking in toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk; /cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk,v <-- packager.mk new revision: 1.10; previous revision: 1.9 done Checking in xpinstall/packager/Packager.pm; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpinstall/packager/Packager.pm,v <-- Packager.pm new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done Checking in xpinstall/packager/xptlink.pl; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpinstall/packager/xptlink.pl,v <-- xptlink.pl new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done Checking in browser/installer/Makefile.in; /cvsroot/mozilla/browser/installer/Makefile.in,v <-- Makefile.in new revision: 1.16; previous revision: 1.15 done
Attachment #187193 -
Attachment description: Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 → Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [checked in]
Comment 4•18 years ago
|
||
I'll put together the thunderbird patch for this.
Comment 5•18 years ago
|
||
The only .xpt files the latest .zip build had was browser.xpt where the previous .zip had many .xpt files. I thought this patch had worked but after installing the installer I see many .xpt files in my components directory. Upon further inspection, the Firefox respin had this error in its xptlink.pl output: [adt] [browser] FAILED: get_file_length: No such file or directory '/cygdrive/c/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla//dist/bin/xpt_link /cygdrive/c/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla//stage/browser/bin/components/browser.xpt.new /cygdrive/c/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla//stage/browser/bin/components/accessibility-msaa.xpt ... /cygdrive/c/builds/tinderbox/Fx-Trunk/WINNT_5.2_Depend/mozilla//stage/browser/bin/components/xultmpl.xpt' failed at xptlink.pl line 144. For comparison, a yesterday's release nightly had this output: Linking .xpt files... [abe] [adt] [browser] [en-US] [reporter] [talkback] [xpcom] Linking .xpt files completed. The only thing that springs out at me is the extra forward slash in the arguments sent to xpt_link. Since we're building those arguments in a different way now I suspect this might be the cause of the error. I committed a patch just now to remove those extra slashes and started a respin on pacifica.
Comment 6•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) > The only .xpt files the latest .zip build had was browser.xpt where the previous > .zip had many .xpt files. I thought this patch had worked but after installing > the installer I see many .xpt files in my components directory. Chase, what do you mean by a lot of .xpt files in your components directory (i.e. how many)? the xpt linker should be linking almost all of them together into browser.xpt, so I would expect you to only see browser.xpt and maybe one for qfa and another one for xpcom. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and you are saying that installer builds now have a bunch of .xpt files with this patch where before you would have only seen a couple. In which case, ignore my question.
Comment 7•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #6) > Or maybe I misunderstood your comment and you are saying that installer builds > now have a bunch of .xpt files with this patch where before you would have only > seen a couple. In which case, ignore my question. This is what I was describing.
Comment 8•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187193 [details] [diff] [review] Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [backed out] I backed these changes out. Checking in browser/installer/Makefile.in; /cvsroot/mozilla/browser/installer/Makefile.in,v <-- Makefile.in new revision: 1.17; previous revision: 1.16 done Checking in xpinstall/packager/xptlink.pl; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpinstall/packager/xptlink.pl,v <-- xptlink.pl new revision: 1.9; previous revision: 1.8 done Checking in xpinstall/packager/Packager.pm; /cvsroot/mozilla/xpinstall/packager/Packager.pm,v <-- Packager.pm new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7 done Checking in toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk; /cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk,v <-- packager.mk new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10 done
Comment 9•18 years ago
|
||
Bug 298976 pointed out other interesting problems that resulted from this patch.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•18 years ago
|
||
I ended up fixing all the hideous tabs in Packager.pm, so this patch is a bit rough: I'll attach a -w version for easier review.
Attachment #187510 -
Flags: first-review?(chase)
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•18 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #187193 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #187193 -
Attachment description: Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [checked in] → Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [backed out]
Comment 12•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187193 [details] [diff] [review] Build tarballs using the installer manifests, rev. 1 [backed out] Minusing since I backed out due to regressions.
Attachment #187193 -
Flags: approval-aviary1.1a2+ → approval-aviary1.1a2-
Comment 13•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187510 [details] [diff] [review] Fix * globbing in the flat case, rev. 1 [checked in] land asap, i'll respin, and we can test result with quick turnaround
Attachment #187510 -
Flags: first-review?(chase)
Attachment #187510 -
Flags: first-review+
Attachment #187510 -
Flags: approval-aviary1.1a2+
Assignee | ||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Attachment #187510 -
Attachment description: Fix * globbing in the flat case, rev. 1 → Fix * globbing in the flat case, rev. 1 [checked in]
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•18 years ago
|
||
Fixed on trunk, with a secondary fix for xptlink.pl to use `cygpath` when necessary to convert cygwin-style paths.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 15•18 years ago
|
||
Untested changes for Thunderbird windows builds. I also renamed basemail-win to packages-static to be consistent with Firefox. Will test this later tonight at home (where my static installer build lives)
Comment 16•18 years ago
|
||
This broke OS/2 because we follow the MSDOS path. I'm removing $os completely because it is not used anymore. I'm using $^O = to cygwin to decide to do the cygpath stuff,
Attachment #197452 -
Flags: first-review?(bsmedberg)
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•18 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 197452 [details] [diff] [review] OS/2 build bustage fix Won't this break the toolkit usages? http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/toolkit/mozapps/installer/build_static.pl #134 http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk#259
Attachment #197452 -
Flags: first-review?(bsmedberg) → first-review-
Updated•4 years ago
|
Product: Toolkit → Toolkit Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•