Closed
Bug 307225
Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Language packs for Firefox 1.5 Beta need chrome.manifest files in order to install
Categories
(Core :: Internationalization: Localization, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: twanno, Assigned: Pike)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: fixed1.8)
Attachments
(6 files)
647 bytes,
text/plain
|
Details | |
1.60 KB,
text/plain
|
Details | |
2.99 KB,
patch
|
zbraniecki
:
review+
coop
:
review+
asa
:
approval1.8b5+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.37 KB,
patch
|
benjamin
:
review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
575 bytes,
patch
|
Pike
:
review+
mtschrep
:
approval1.8b5+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
2.24 KB,
patch
|
benjamin
:
review+
mscott
:
superreview+
mscott
:
approval1.8b5+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050905 Firefox/1.0+ Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050905 Firefox/1.0+ Currently language packs won't install in recent 1.0+ branch builds, because of a failed chrome registration. This is because the language packs don't contain contents.rdf files anymore. When I manually add a chrome.manifest file based on the install.rdf file (and raise the em maxVersion to 1.0+), the language packs install without any problem. Further more, according to the install.rdf specs at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/extensions/packaging/extensions.html an em:type entry has to be specified in the install.rdf file (type=8 for localizations), but I don't think leaving that out will not install the language pack Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. download language pack from given url 2. manually raise the maxVersion to 1.0+ in install.rdf so it will install in recent 1.0+ nightly 3. drag and drop modified xpi in browser, so it will install 4. restart Firefox 5. Notice chrome registration failed error Actual Results: Language pack will not install with error dialog saying that chrome registration failed Expected Results: chrome registration should be succesfull When a chrome.manifest file is added to the language pack, the em:file information in install.rdf could be removed, because that is not necessary anymore. BTW: I use the language packs to test localizations of my extensions, so I don't have to download several different localized builds.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•19 years ago
|
||
With this chrome.manifest file added to the French (fr) language pack, and a modified install.rdf (which I will attach next), the language pack installed without a problem
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•19 years ago
|
||
In this file I commented out the em:file declaration, because with a chrome.manifest file this is not necessary anymore. I also added this line <em:type>8</em:type> to show it is a localization. And I raised the maxVersion to 1.4 (so it will work when the version of Firefox is raised to 1.4). Apart from the last step, these modifications are not necessary to install the language pack correctly in the latest mozilla1.8-branch Firefox nightly
Reporter | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #195015 -
Attachment mime type: application/rdf+xml → text/plain
Reporter | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Component: Other → Localization
Product: Mozilla Localizations → Core
Version: unspecified → 1.8 Branch
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•19 years ago
|
||
changing from Product: Mozilla Localizations, Component: Other to Product: Core, Component: Localization, because I think it's better off here. And asking blocking 1.8b5, as I think this should be fixed before Firefox 1.5 comes out and I can't ask for blocking-aviary1.5 here.
Flags: blocking1.8b5?
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
I'll be driving this, patch coming up. It'd be good to have this on the branch, too. This is merely l10n language packaging build foo, so no l10n impact per-se.
Assignee: nobody → l10n
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
CCing localizers, though there is no l10n impact codewise, this is still interesting.
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
This patch does the following fixes to the generic install.rdf: It removes the obsolete em:file stuff, add em:type and uses @MOZ_APP_VERSION@ for em:minVersion and maxVersion, as the build is checking for compatibility anyway. In addition, I added a USE_EXTENSION_MANIFEST=1 to the phase that builds the langpacks, so that chrome.manifest is generated (it looks like the one attached), and pack that generated file, those are the changes to Makefile.in.
Attachment #196307 -
Flags: review?(gandalf)
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 196307 [details] [diff] [review] fix language pack building r+
Attachment #196307 -
Flags: review?(gandalf) → review+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #196307 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
fix landed on the trunk, letting it smoke for a bit.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b5? → blocking1.8b5+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Backed out the Makefile.in part, as that busted macs. I'd be thankful if someone could run make -n with the modified makefile and compare that to http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~hecht/build.log, as that does give -c l10n-source, which the macs complain about. http://tinderbox.mozilla.org/showlog.cgi?log=Mozilla-l10n-da/1126875840.20470.gz is an example build log of the bustage (not special to da, other builds at the time are busted the same way).
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Flags: blocking1.8b5+ → blocking1.8b5?
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.8b5? → blocking1.8b5+
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
Axel, we need to get this in the branch ASAP. Is it ready to go?
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
macs refused to give a profound reason for the error message so far, I'll provide a patch that just disables the chrome.manifest building for the mac, unless bsmedberg has a cycle to investigate. I looked at a log of make -n, and even on a mac, the locale dir argument is given. May be escaping or file path fun or whatever, I'll need a mac to do some perl -d. Anyway, if the locale xpis built on mac don't make nice langpacks, that's not too bad.
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 309716 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
I want benjamin to review this, this is his baby and I hack it.
Attachment #197170 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
Not sure, if it is related to this bug: <maxversion> is still set to 1.1 in latest langpacks. This should be the coresponding version (1.4 at this time) to the relating binaries.
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 197170 [details] [diff] [review] build and ship chrome.manifest for all but macs Well, that's more than a little weird, and it should probably be investigated. But the hack-solution ought to be to ifdef http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/browser/locales/Makefile.in#252 so that we don't try to make the langpack at all on mac.
Attachment #197170 -
Flags: review?(benjamin) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
Re #14, this bug isn't fixed for mail at all, http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/mail/locales/generic/install.rdf. Benjamin, I need someone with a mac and perl debugger time to solve this right for 1.5. Hacking the langpack out of there is more intrusive than justified, IMHO, as we call the libs phase there. I do expect to have a mac at my disposal post 1.5, too, and I plan to pick this up then. As we're talking, I would like to set max and minor version of the langpack to the branch base version and the branch head version, respectively. Something equivalent to 1.0 and 1.0.7. Any idea for that?
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #197705 -
Flags: review?(l10n)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #197705 -
Flags: review?(l10n) → review+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #197705 -
Flags: approval1.8b5?
Comment 18•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment 197705 [details] [diff] checked in on trunk.
Comment 19•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 197705 [details] [diff] [review] Process the "-e" option to make-jars.pl correctly [checked in on 1.8 branch] Approved for 1.8b5.
Attachment #197705 -
Flags: approval1.8b5? → approval1.8b5+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #197705 -
Attachment description: Process the "-e" option to make-jars.pl correctly → Process the "-e" option to make-jars.pl correctly [checked in on 1.8 branch]
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•19 years ago
|
||
Relanded the backed out part of attachement 196307, thanks to bsmedberg for finding the bug in make-js.pl. Leaving open for the mail part of this.
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 196307 [details] [diff] [review] fix language pack building Requesting approval, this is a l10n langpack-only change that does not require interaction from l10n owners. Now that the trunk and the branch have the required fix, this is low risk.
Attachment #196307 -
Flags: approval1.8b5?
Comment 22•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 196307 [details] [diff] [review] fix language pack building do we need to make these same changes to Thunderbird? If so, can we get a patch here or in a new bug please? thanks.
Attachment #196307 -
Flags: approval1.8b5? → approval1.8b5+
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•19 years ago
|
||
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: review?(benjamin)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: superreview?(mscott)
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: superreview?(mscott)
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #198010 -
Flags: approval1.8b5+
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•19 years ago
|
||
Fixed for both thunderbird and firefox on both trunk and 1.5 branch.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago → 19 years ago
Keywords: fixed1.8
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•