Closed Bug 343203 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

Verify Add or Remove Programs Publisher and Product Updates urls

Categories

(Firefox :: Installer, defect)

2.0 Branch
x86
Windows XP
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 2 beta2

People

(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: robert.strong.bugs)

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8.1)

Attachments

(2 files)

On win32 there are urls for Publisher and Product Updates in Add or Remove Programs. These are currently set to the following for all locales: Publisher http://www.mozilla.org/ Product Updates http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ These need to be verified and updated if necessary for Firefox 2.0
Flags: blocking-firefox2?
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 2 beta2
I bet they need to be localized, too, so I'm adding phil to this lovely little bug. My instinct says: publisher: http://www.mozilla.com update : http://www.mozilla.com/firefox And I know Phil's trying to get us to standardize on a http://foo.bar/baz.html?LOCALE scheme, so we might just want to start there!
Flags: blocking-firefox2? → blocking-firefox2+
beltzner, since you brought up RC, etc. releases in bug 339734 - bug 339734 will split out the official release urls from the alpha, beta, and nightly url data. This means we could easily have urls for official releases and a different set of urls for the others. So they could be something along the lines of the following with AB_CD being the locale and 2.0RC1 being the version... Official: publisher: http://www.mozilla.com?AB_CD update : http://www.mozilla.com/firefox?AB_CD nightly, etc. publisher: http://www.mozilla.com?locale=AB_CD&version=2.0RC1 update : http://www.mozilla.com/firefox?locale=AB_CD&version=2.0RC1
Whiteboard: [mustfix]
Axel, Phil: is this the right URI pattern to be using for your new l10n URL strategy? From the most recent posts to the thread in dev.planning, it seems like you're actually advocating using: http://www.foo.com/locale instead of http://www.foo.com/index.html?LOCALE. Rob: I think the difference in URLs should be for when --official-branding is enabled or disabled. When enabled, they should point to: Publisher: http://www.mozilla.com Updates : http://www.mozilla.com/firefox when disabled, they should point to: Publisher: http://www.mozilla.org Updates : http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox
(In reply to comment #3) > Axel, Phil: is this the right URI pattern to be using for your new l10n URL > strategy? From the most recent posts to the thread in dev.planning, it seems > like you're actually advocating using: http://www.foo.com/locale instead of > http://www.foo.com/index.html?LOCALE. Yes, exactly; that turns out to be easier to mod-rewrite. The locale should be inserted as the first element in the path: Publisher: http://www.mozilla.com/LOCALE Updates : http://www.mozilla.com/LOCALE/firefox There has been little or no pushback (indeed, commentary of any sort) on the thread, and wclouser demonstrated it working on the server, so I'd say run with it! I'll make a note in the l10n requirements document.
That's fine - we can now have different urls for nightly, etc. vs when we have --enable-official-branding without having to make changes to files when we set --enable-official-branding. So, for --enable-official-branding where LOCALE is @AB_CD@ in the build system: Publisher: http://www.mozilla.com/LOCALE Updates : http://www.mozilla.com/LOCALE/firefox Do you want a different url for nightly builds and if so what would you like?
-> Rob I don't think this explicitly blocks b2, but it'd be nice to have if its easy.
Assignee: nobody → robert.bugzilla
hmmm, then maybe [mustfix] should be removed from the status whiteboard? :P
Attached patch patchSplinter Review
Attachment #231654 - Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Attached patch branch patchSplinter Review
Attachment #231655 - Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Whiteboard: [mustfix] → [mustfix][has patch][needs review sspitzer]
Attachment #231655 - Flags: review?(sspitzer) → review+
Comment on attachment 231654 [details] [diff] [review] patch r=sspitzer
Attachment #231654 - Flags: review?(sspitzer) → review+
Fixed on trunk
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [mustfix][has patch][needs review sspitzer] → [mustfix][has patch]
Comment on attachment 231655 [details] [diff] [review] branch patch Simple safe patch for 1.8.1 branch
Attachment #231655 - Flags: approval1.8.1?
Comment on attachment 231655 [details] [diff] [review] branch patch > !define CompanyName "Mozilla" This should be mozilla.org for unofficial, and Mozilla Corporation for the official builds. Sorry, thought I poked you about that on IRC.
Attachment #231655 - Flags: approval1.8.1? → approval1.8.1-
Comment on attachment 231655 [details] [diff] [review] branch patch Rerequesting a1.8.1. I'm handling the CompanyName changes in bug 346925. :)
Attachment #231655 - Flags: approval1.8.1- → approval1.8.1?
Thanks reed... exactly. What you are asking for isn't what this patch is about and is a last minute change that can / should be handled in bug 346925 IMO. You did poke me about this and provided two different answers so I asked to think about this longer so the what was decided upon would be solid.
Comment on attachment 231655 [details] [diff] [review] branch patch Ah. Oops. a=me.
Attachment #231655 - Flags: approval1.8.1? → approval1.8.1+
Thanks and checked into MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH
Keywords: fixed1.8.1
Whiteboard: [mustfix][has patch]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: