474805 - set |PKG_LANGPACK_PATH = $(MOZ_PKG_PLATFORM)/xpi/| in browser/locales/Makefile.in

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Release Engineering :: General, enhancement, P5)

Description

[Robert Kaiser]

When I looked into bug 456351 once again, Ben noted that prepare-upload-locale target is obsolete since bug 464154 landed, and I found a few suboptimal things in the package-name.mk patch for the latter.

What we should (probably) do here:
1) Remove prepare-upload-locale target
2) Move COMPLETE_MAR and LANGPACK out of the if as we're doing the same for "pretty" and standard names for them
3) Use COMPLETE_MAR and LANGPACK consistently in the build process where possible
4) Move PKG_LANGPACK_PATH for "pretty" names back to being langpack/
5) On 1.9.1 only, set |PKG_LANGPACK_PATH = $(MOZ_PKG_PLATFORM)/xpi/| in browser/locales/Makefile.in

As the "right" way to do things is to have platform-neutral langpacks (if they aren't already, our L10n model fails) and "xpi" as a name can be about anything, we should put them into a "langpack" directory by default. For Firefox 3.1 only, to not disturb a release in this phase, we should keep the paths we have right now, so doing that in browser/ sounds like the best thing to do.

Comment 1

[[e-mail] (:bhearsum)]

I'll sign myself up for #1, 2, 4, and 5 post-beta2. #3 is a little vague, not sure I want to commit to it ;-).

Axel, are you okay with the PKG_LANGPACK_PATH definition moving to the l10n makefile on 1.9.1?

Comment 2

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

I'd like to see a less confusing description of how things are supposed to work, and less of tweaking where we see which variables.

FWIW, I'm using prepare-upload-latest-% for the fx builds on the l10n server.

Comment 3

[John O'Duinn [:joduinn] (please use "needinfo?" flag)]

Pushing to Future until the discussions here are figured out. Also, cc-ing Coop and Armen, who've been working on lots of l10n code recently, for their thoughts.

Comment 4

[Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him)]

Changing the importance on this bug. I'm all for cleaning things up in this code if we can come to some agreement, but it is purely cosmetic. We have a working system.

KaiRo: are all 5 points still valid after 10 months?

Comment 5

[Robert Kaiser]

I'd need to inspect code, I haven't been listening to trunk a lot recently, and I'm not sure if I come to look at anything in the next month or so, as three weeks of that are vacation.

So, to make it short, I know that 5) is still valid, I'd need to look into the others, but they may very well still be relevant.

Comment 6

[Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him)]

Mass move of bugs from Release Engineering:Future -> Release Engineering. See
http://coop.deadsquid.com/2010/02/kiss-the-future-goodbye/ for more details.

Comment 7

[Mike Taylor [:bear]]

Is anything needed to be done for this still?  Or should I close it as WONTFIX?

Comment 8

[Chris Cooper [:coop] (he/him)]

If there's cleanup that still needs to happen for m-c or 1.9.2, let's file a new bug, but I'm disinclined to fix up makefiles on the 1.9.1 branch any more.