614366 - separate binary finding logic from automation-build.mk

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Description

[Jeff Hammel]

Currently, the only way to find the binary location in the build system is via automation-build.mk:

http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/build/automation-build.mk

However, this does not suffice for test harnesses to reference the binary internal to the makefiles as the path to the binary is bizarrely quoted (e.g. dist/bin/firefox-bin is a valid path, but "dist/bin/firefox-bin" is not).  This should be remedied.  

In addition, the binary-finding logic is separate from the further intention of automation-build.mk.  If automation-build.mk is going to be included as cross-platform binary-finding logic (see bug 613804), then this functionality should be separated out to its own file and included into automation-build.mk

Comment 1

[Jeff Hammel]

Attachment: separate binary finding logic from automation-build.mk

first round of the patch; try on try atm

Comment 2

[cmtalbert]

Landed after getting a+ from ted on irc: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/4182651505fb

Comment 3

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

I would have expected to see license boilerplate; any reason for its absence?

Comment 4

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

I landed a follow-up to this to fix automation-build.mk usage from comm-central applications.

Basically the include for binary-location.mk should have used $(MOZILLA_DIR) rather than $(topsrcdir) - the way comm-central is structured means that $(topsrcdir) there is pointing to the comm-central repo, not the mozilla-central one. This was the actual patch:

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1b0158a0a67e

Comment 5

[Jeff Hammel]

Attachment: add license to build-location.mk

Comment 6

[Jeff Hammel]

(In reply to comment #3)
> I would have expected to see license boilerplate; any reason for its absence?

Sorry, forgot about it; see attachment 497297 [details] [diff] [review]

Comment 7

[cmtalbert]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I would have expected to see license boilerplate; any reason for its absence?
> 
> Sorry, forgot about it; see attachment 497297 [details] [diff] [review]

Pushed: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e7d4ff8c03ad