656551 - xpis generated by builder are not compatible with Aurora or Nightly channels

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Add-on Builder, defect)

Description

[Dietrich Ayala (:dietrich)]

please update the install.rdf to the one in the SDK.

this should be expedited instead of waiting until the next Builder release. in fact, we should have a process in place to automatically update the install.rdf whenever the max version changes.

Comment 1

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

We are never changing the SDK content.
It would be great to force compatibility via package.json

SDK 1.0b5 made a significant change in package creation (no more signing the package) - we haven't yet been testing towards it.

It does involve several changes, but it should speed up the repackaging process.

Comment 2

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

[:dietrich] suggested to fix SDK.
[:myk] will create a change and tag the repository
Problem should be solved after updating the production server

Comment 3

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Attachment: pull request 163: updates 1.0b4 branch, setting Firefox max version to 7.0a1

I issued a pull request on this:

https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/163

Dietrich: can you review?

I'm not sure why this pull request includes seven commits from the 1.0b4 branch that should have already been pulled into the canonical repo. I'll want to confer with Brian on why those aren't already in that repo. But in any case it should be fine to pull them in when pulling in this change.

Note: I recreated the 1.0b4 branch for this request based on the 1.0b4 tag, as we had previously deleted that branch per our standard release process.

Comment 4

[Dietrich Ayala (:dietrich)]

Comment on attachment 531867 [details]
pull request 163: updates 1.0b4 branch, setting Firefox max version to 7.0a1

r=me on the change to python-lib/cuddlefish/app-extension/install.rdf

Comment 5

[Brian Warner [:warner :bwarner]]

I'll land just the install.rdf change as a separate patch, rather than trying to merge the whole 1.0b4 branch, for the reasons mentioned in the pull request. (also note: the attachment here has an href that actually points to the wrong pull requests.. use the link in comment 3)

Comment 6

[Brian Warner [:warner :bwarner]]

Landed in https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/commit/9e255cb80fe883954e2da1f2ecb4f23524c87fbb

Incidentally, merely changing install.rdf in the copy of the SDK that Flightdeck uses probably isn't a good idea: it could easily be the case that the SDK is producing addons which *aren't* compatible with newer versions. Updating the whole SDK as a unit feels safer to me.

Comment 7

[Dietrich Ayala (:dietrich)]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Incidentally, merely changing install.rdf in the copy of the SDK that
> Flightdeck uses probably isn't a good idea: it could easily be the case that
> the SDK is producing addons which *aren't* compatible with newer versions.
> Updating the whole SDK as a unit feels safer to me.

How would we find that out otherwise? If you're using Aurora or Nightly, discovering those kinds of incompatibilities is part of the deal :)

Comment 8

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

(In reply to comment #5)
> I'll land just the install.rdf change as a separate patch, rather than
> trying to merge the whole 1.0b4 branch, for the reasons mentioned in the
> pull request.

Yup, makes sense.  Thanks!  Just make sure to land it as a change to the revision tagged 1.0b4 and then tag the change as 1.0b4.1 so we can give Piotr a tag to pull when updating Builder.

(Whether or not we actually ship SDK 1.0b4.1 is a separate issue.  I'm inclined not to do so.  But we need to tag it with something, and that comes to mind.  I'm happy to entertain alternatives, however.)

Comment 9

[Brian Warner [:warner :bwarner]]

Oh, sorry, I was confused.. I landed the change on trunk. I'll create 1.0b4.1 now.

Comment 10

[Brian Warner [:warner :bwarner]]

Done, in https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/tree/1.0b4.1 . Piotr should be able to fetch the "1.0b4.1" tag to get 1.0b4 plus the install.rdf change.

Comment 11

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Piotr: did this give you what you needed?  Is there anything else we need to do here?

Comment 12

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

Yes - it should be fine - haven't done it yet

Comment 13

[Daniel Buchner [:dbuc]]

(In reply to comment #12)
> Yes - it should be fine - haven't done it yet

Can I get a status on this? It looks complete, if so please close it Piotr.

Comment 14

[Piotr Zalewa [:zalun]]

fixed after importing 1.0 final