682414 - (unofficial-fx) [meta] Provide a complete, polished, unencumbered default unofficial branding package

Status: NEW

(Firefox :: General, enhancement)

Description

[Matt McCutchen]

Provide a complete, polished, unencumbered default unofficial branding package (browser/branding/unofficial) that is a suitable starting point for distributors such as Debian.

Comment 1

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

I don't understand how this differs from bug 659568, or how it's related to bug 557752 or bug 650274 at all. Can you please explain?

Comment 2

[Matt McCutchen]

This is the tracker for the full goal as stated in comment #0.  Bug 659568 is just for switching the default unofficial branding package to "branding/browser/unofficial".  The other bugs have to be resolved for the unofficial build to be considered completely unencumbered.

Comment 3

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

We're not going to switch the default branding until we make "unofficial" at least semi-useful, so I'm not sure it's useful to track those as two separate tasks.

Bug 557752 and bug 650274 are related to branding, but they're largely orthogonal to this goal (they could be fixed without fixing this bug, for example).

Comment 4

[Matt McCutchen]

(In reply to Gavin Sharp from comment #3)
> We're not going to switch the default branding until we make "unofficial" at
> least semi-useful, so I'm not sure it's useful to track those as two
> separate tasks.

Consider "semi-useful", or "better than the status quo", to be part of bug 659568.  This bug is for "complete, polished, unencumbered", which is stronger.

> Bug 557752 and bug 650274 are related to branding, but they're largely
> orthogonal to this goal

No... as Mike said, a build that shows "Firefox" on about:neterror pages and lies to the safe browsing service that it is Firefox cannot be considered unencumbered.

> (they could be fixed without fixing this bug, for
> example).

But not vice versa, so the relationship is a "depends on", as I had it.

Comment 5

[Matt McCutchen]

Restoring the "depends" per comment #4 since I heard no objection.

Comment 6

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

The about dialog has an issue as well for this:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=625476

Comment 7

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

OK, I see.

Bug 632264 is another such bug.

Comment 8

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

I'm just getting up to speed on this.

I find this really funny, since I complained about this years ago:

http://mike.kaply.com/2008/05/28/the-browser-with-no-name/

One of the other issues that I found in the past (looks to be less of a problem then it was) was the occasional place where brandFullName was used when brandShortName would have been appropriate.

For instance, in the windows AudioSession code, they are using brandFullName when brandShortName is appropriate.

In general, when the user sees the name of the browser in interacting with it, it should be brandShortName.

I think brandFullName should be reserved for legal stuff, about dialogs.

Comment 9

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

I found my other bug related to this:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=434036

Not sure if it's as big an issue anymore, but it was another hurdle to doing unofficial branding.

Comment 10

[Matt McCutchen]

Bug 434036 is an obstacle to some cases of rebranding but not to having a good default unofficial build, which would be analogous to Firefox in its use of brand short and long names.  Not adding a dependency.

Comment 11

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

There might be some concerns with about:rights, too.

Comment 12

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

And about:license, too:
“Binaries of this product have been made available to you by the Mozilla Project under the Mozilla Public License. Know your rights.”

Except for the builds coming from ftp.mozilla.org, this is not true.