412625 - support extension language packs on AMO

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Administration, enhancement, P5)

Description

[Robert Kaiser]

It would be really nice if AMO would know about extension locale packs (extensions of em:type="8" with a em:requires for the other extension) and install them with a multi-item InstallTrigger().

We have implemented using such packages for ChatZilla in bug 394315, bug 394633 will do it for venkman, and I believe it would also be the best option for Lightning (bug 352546) and other extensions - but in order to make the experience really good for users, we should have support for that in AMO.

Comment 1

[cmtalbert]

Attachment: Some background IRC discussion on how this issue surfaced

This is the IRC log on how this requirement surfaced during a discussion on packaging locales for extensions between the seamonkey and calendar developers.

Comment 2

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

This has been brought up a few times in our meetings and if I recall correctly it always dead ends with "what does firefox support?"

If someone could give us details on if/how firefox supports extension dependencies we could move this forward.  Who should we CC for this info?

Comment 3

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

mossop: could you take a gander?

Comment 4

[Basil Hashem [:baz]]

Tracking bug 390660 exists already that I believe covers this topic.

Comment 5

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

And how does this one here relate to bug 245946? Dupe?

Comment 6

[Dave Townsend [:mossop]]

(In reply to comment #2)
> This has been brought up a few times in our meetings and if I recall correctly
> it always dead ends with "what does firefox support?"
> 
> If someone could give us details on if/how firefox supports extension
> dependencies we could move this forward.  Who should we CC for this info?

Firefox and all toolkit apps support extension dependencies using the <em:requires> property in install.rdf as documented here: http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/install.rdf#requires

Comment 7

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Tracking bug 390660 exists already that I believe covers this topic.
> 

(In reply to comment #5)
> And how does this one here relate to bug 245946? Dupe?
> 

Aside from the most recent comments on 245946 both of those bugs are talking about application language packs, not extension language packs.  I don't think there is a dupe there.

Comment 8

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Tracking bug 390660 exists already that I believe covers this topic.
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > And how does this one here relate to bug 245946? Dupe?
> 
> Aside from the most recent comments on 245946 both of those bugs are talking
> about application language packs, not extension language packs.

Oh, true, I looked at the wiki page linked to from bug 245946 but that fits in here rather than there: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Extension_Localization_Update_Issues .

I'll delete it over there.

Comment 9

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

-> Cleaning up this Component because we Retire the "add-ons" Component in Bugzilla 
--> Over to Administration

Comment 10

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

Extension language packs definitely seems like the more complicated, tedious way to localize an extension. Firefox 4 doesn't support extension dependencies anymore and the user would have an additional item in their Add-ons Manager.

I haven't heard of any add-ons other than the ones in this bug using extension language packs. Of course, if AMO supported them, there would probably be more, but this seems an overly complicated way to do things.

I'm inclined to WONTFIX this given the complication of AMO and the add-ons system already, unless someone makes a compelling argument that extension language packs would actually be used and are worth the hassle for developers and localizers.

Comment 11

[Robert Kaiser]

Actually, extension language packs would be quite easy for localizers and add-on developers, given that they wouldn't be that heavily dependent on each other on release planning, and they would vastly reduce the size of add-ons, given that supporting 20 languages often makes the add-ons double or triple in size - and I don't even nearly talk about matching Firefox' >70 languages. There is a good reason why we only ship single-language applications, and that reason easily applies to add-ons as well: It significantly bloats download and installed size to ship all locales _inside_ the application or add-on bundle.

Comment 12

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

Thanks for filing this.  Due to resource constraints we are closing bugs which we won't realistically be able to fix.  If you have a patch that applies to this bug please reopen.

For more info see http://micropipes.com/blog/2014/09/24/the-great-add-on-bug-triage/