Only package CRT files ifndef MOZ_MEMORY

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 3 beta4

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
11 years ago
11 years ago

People

(Reporter: philor, Assigned: philor)

Tracking

Trunk
Firefox 3 beta4
x86
Windows XP
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Assignee)

Description

11 years ago
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 :)
I totally noticed this and then forgot to do anything about it. At least I got packages-static, right?
(Assignee)

Comment 2

11 years ago
"got packages-static" how? Unless I'm confused, you got removed-files.in, and *didn't* get packages-static.
Yeah, apparently I didn't get my brain to work either. You'll get r=me on a patch, though!
(Assignee)

Comment 4

11 years ago
Created attachment 306199 [details] [diff] [review]
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.
Assignee: nobody → philringnalda
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #306199 - Flags: review?(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.
Attachment #306199 - Flags: review?(ted.mielczarek) → review+
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9b4?
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9?
Comment on attachment 306199 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix v.1

a=beltzner for after beta 4
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9b4?
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9b4-
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9?
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9+
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
Attachment #306199 - Flags: approval1.9b4- → approval1.9b4+
reed's a liar.
(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.
Yeah, but this file has no impact on that. I fixed removed-files.in. This just fixes a warning in the build process.
(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.
(Assignee)

Updated

11 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Created attachment 306338 [details] [diff] [review]
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
Attachment #306199 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 3 beta4
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.