419916 - Only package CRT files ifndef MOZ_MEMORY

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Description

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Bug 415928 added an #ifdef MOZ_MEMORY to removed-files.in to remove the CRT files we don't need with jemalloc, but left packages-static groping around still trying to package them. If we ifndef them, then the build log will only have the enormous spew of expected errors from jemalloc itself to hide real problems beneath :)

Comment 1

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

I totally noticed this and then forgot to do anything about it. At least I got packages-static, right?

Comment 2

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

"got packages-static" how? Unless I'm confused, you got removed-files.in, and *didn't* get packages-static.

Comment 3

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Yeah, apparently I didn't get my brain to work either. You'll get r=me on a patch, though!

Comment 4

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: Fix v.1

Hmm, looking at this patch (without any real understanding) makes me wonder whether we need an #else in removed-files.in to remove mozcrt19.dll when you hypothetically update/install a non-jemalloc build on top of a jemalloc one.

Comment 5

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Comment on attachment 306199 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix v.1

You could do that for the theoretical purity of it, but I'm not really worried about it. Your choice.

Comment 6

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Comment on attachment 306199 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix v.1

a=beltzner for after beta 4

Comment 7

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Comment on attachment 306199 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix v.1

a1.9b4=beltzner, reed convinced me that this makes the testing of 2.x -> 3.0bx easier

Comment 8

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

reed's a liar.

Comment 9

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #8)
> reed's a liar.

Considering all the work cf has been doing in bug 394046 to keep these files correct, I think we would like to do this sooner rather than later, especially if the Build team wants to do a major update test from Fx2 to Fx3b4.

Comment 10

[(not currently active) Ted Mielczarek]

Yeah, but this file has no impact on that. I fixed removed-files.in. This just fixes a warning in the build process.

Comment 11

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Yeah, but this file has no impact on that. I fixed removed-files.in. This just
> fixes a warning in the build process.

Fixing extraneous warnings == making Build team happier that they don't have to worry that such a warning is for something real or not.

Comment 12

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Attachment: what I landed

Checking in browser/installer/removed-files.in;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/installer/removed-files.in,v  <--  removed-files.in
new revision: 1.42; previous revision: 1.41
done
Checking in browser/installer/windows/packages-static;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/installer/windows/packages-static,v  <--  packages-static
new revision: 1.158; previous revision: 1.157
done