Closed Bug 377953 Opened 13 years ago Closed 12 years ago

build suiterunner package/installer via suite/installer

Categories

(SeaMonkey :: Build Config, defect)

defect
Not set

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: kairo, Assigned: kairo)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

To unify things with Firefox/Thunderbird/etc., we should change the SeaMonkey packaging with suiterunner to build package/installer from the suite/installer dir instead of xpinstall/packager. The checkin for bug 377409 shows pretty well that everyone has the same conventions except us :)

This should be really easy once suiterunner has landed, as Windows installer will be in suite/installer anyways, and package is basically just calling generic .mk files nowadays.
The bigger problem might be unix installer, but we can probably just call the xpinstall version from the suite/installer Makefile for that (if unix installer will continue to work at all with suiterunner).
(In reply to comment #0)
> The bigger problem might be unix installer, but we can probably just call the
> xpinstall version from the suite/installer Makefile for that (if unix installer
> will continue to work at all with suiterunner).

Last I checked the unix installer does mostly work with suiterunner - I even got it registering the chrome properly. The only things that still need fixing are extension installation.
This adds and uses a suite/installer/Makefile.in that does packages as well as tries to build an installer from the respective platform subdir (note that we currently have none, but we should get Windows soon with the NSIS patch).

I added no removed-files stuff or such yet, we can add that later on as needed, it's not strictly required. Also, anything the installer needs, like package lists or such, should be added when the installer itself lands.
Assignee: nobody → kairo
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #265258 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Blocks: 381039
Comment on attachment 265258 [details] [diff] [review]
Add suite/installer/Makefile.in

luser probably has a shorter queue than benjamin ;-)
Attachment #265258 - Flags: review?(benjamin) → review?(ted.mielczarek)
Attachment #265258 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
thanks, checked in!
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.