526872 - Upload SDK package for mobile builds

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Release Engineering :: General, defect, P5)

Description

[Oleg Romashin (:romaxa)]

I think it would be nice to have official builds with SDK and debug files for fennec/mobile.

It should make easier fennec debugging, and faster native extensions development/compilation.

Comment 1

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

Stuart: how important is this, relative to other mobile goals?

romaxa: if someone can provide the necessary configs (or config deltas) for generating these builds, that would greatly speed up the setup of these builds.

Comment 2

[Stuart Parmenter]

coop: it would be nice to do, but is lower than everything else right now.

Comment 3

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

OK, will revisit in a few weeks, or possibly sooner if someone provides the needed mozconfig files and settings.

Comment 4

[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 5

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Revisiting comment 1: what mozconfig/other magic is required to do this?

Comment 6

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

This will most likely be obsoleted by bug 555674.

[11:08]	<blassey>	export MOZ_DEBUG_SYMBOLS=1 in the mozconfig
	then zip up dist/bin
	<ted>	if you're on trunk, --enable-debug-symbols
	blassey: ew, no
	--disable-install-strip
	<aki>	heh
[11:09]	<blassey>	ted, we want both stripped and unstripped from the same build
	no?
	<ted>	why?
	<blassey>	basically "oh, I'm crashing with this nightly build.... let me pull down the corresponding symbols"
	<ted>	oh
[11:10]	we should just get the breakpad patches landed and start uploading symbols
	that uploads debug symbols to the symbol server
	<aki>	sounds like that's a better option
	<blassey>	yes, ideally
	how far are we from that?
[11:11]	<ted>	bug 555674
	just needs review
	<aki>	nice

Comment 7

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

Can this be resolved now that bug 555674 is fixed?

Comment 8

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

I think it's not fixed yet, but can probably be duped against bug 557572, which I'm actively working on.

Comment 9

[Brad Lassey [:blassey] (use needinfo?)]

Oleg asked for two fairly different things here. The debug symbols is being taken care of by the breakpad work, but as far as I know we still don't upload the sdk.

Comment 10

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

(In reply to comment #9)
> Oleg asked for two fairly different things here. The debug symbols is being
> taken care of by the breakpad work, but as far as I know we still don't upload
> the sdk.

OK, then changing the summary to something more accurate.

Comment 11

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Re: the sdk, this should be a one time thing per sdk, correct?
Seems like we should be able to upload the Chinook sdk and the Fremantle sdk and call this bug fixed?

Comment 12

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

(In reply to comment #11)
> Re: the sdk, this should be a one time thing per sdk, correct?
> Seems like we should be able to upload the Chinook sdk and the Fremantle sdk
> and call this bug fixed?

That's true for final releases, but for nightlies, we would want the SDK updated and on the FTP site with the builds. Kinda like the "tests" archive.

Comment 13

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

1) nightly directories are kept forever (or, years at least, before they're archived)
2) we build a lot of nightlies
3) these sdks hardly ever change

do we really need to upload the same thing hundreds of times?

Comment 14

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

I was thinking of just putting the SDK in the "latest-mobile-*" folder and then in the release folders. Is that any better?

Comment 15

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

To be clear, is this bug requesting the mozilla internal sdk [1] or the entire scratchbox+sdk?

If it is requesting the mozilla internal sdk, can we generate that from a fennec build or do we need to do a seperate xulrunner build for linux-arm?

[1] Example: ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/xulrunner-2.0b2pre.en-US.linux-x86_64.sdk.tar.bz2

Comment 16

[Brad Lassey [:blassey] (use needinfo?)]

its requesting the gecko sdk like we generate and upload for desktop

Comment 17

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

and I assume we could use a fennec build to create the SDK... but I have not tested that theory

Comment 18

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

I'm not finding a gecko sdk for desktop in firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central ?

Do you know how we would create this? I'm not sure where to look.

Comment 19

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

it seems that they are normally built against xulrunner not firefox.  There are examples of where you can find a desktop sdk build in comment 15.

Mark, would running |make package-sdk| in the objdir of a mobile build be what is required to get this going?

Comment 20

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

(In reply to comment #19)
> it seems that they are normally built against xulrunner not firefox.  There are
> examples of where you can find a desktop sdk build in comment 15.
> 
> Mark, would running |make package-sdk| in the objdir of a mobile build be what
> is required to get this going?

sorry, make -f client.mk sdk in the top source directory.

from:
http://hg.mozilla.org/build/buildbotcustom/file/48958f359127/process/factory.py#l928

Comment 21

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

make -f client.mk sdk

Failed to find a target

make -C objdir package sdk

Just made a normal package, not an SDK

Comment 22

[John Ford [:jhford] CET/CEST Berlin Time]

if that is the case, it sounds like we would need to do a xulrunner +sdk build for the devices.  Is this something that we still want to do?

Comment 23

[Mark Finkle (:mfinkle) (use needinfo?)]

I say we put this on hold for now. If someone has a really good reason why js-ctypes can't be our binary FFI, let me know.

Comment 24

[Aki Sasaki (not active)]

Sounds good.