88116 - New config files for MacOSX installer needed

Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX

(SeaMonkey :: Installer, defect, P2)

Description

[Mike Pinkerton (not reading bugmail)]

We need a new config.ini_tmpl for MacOSX since the URL has to change to point to 
the OSX bits, not the OS9 bits.

JJ, samir tells me that you have packaging scripts that take the _tmpl files and 
do the right thing with them. Is that correct? Should you be the one adding these 
new files to moz (& ns) and then modifying your own package scripts accordingly? 
If not, reassign back to me and I can do whatever work is required.

Beta stopper.

Comment 1

[Mike Pinkerton (not reading bugmail)]

should i bother creating a separate bug for the ns tree?

Comment 2

[J.J. Enser]

I'll take it.
Basically, we could have a new config.ini_tmplx that the packaging automation 
could pick for MacOSX installer packaging, but i need to understand the overall 
plan better:
Will the wizard change for OSX ? will the .xpi packaging be affected ? why do we 
need distinct URLs? how are the new URLs be populated ?
All these questions will obviously affect the packaging process automation, so 
the more details I can get the better.

Comment 3

[Mike Pinkerton (not reading bugmail)]

well, we need to point to different bits, right? There need to be new xpi's that 
are different from the classic macos xpi's since osx is essentially a different 
platform. Doesn't that mean a new URL?

The wizard will be different only that it is carbon, so it is a separate binary 
from the os9 binary, but no other changes should be required.

make sense?

Comment 4

[J.J. Enser]

yes, we already have separate xpi subdirs for each platform since the stubs are 
all pushed to the same ftp location (mac-xpi, windows-xpi and linux-xpi)

whatever names is chosen for OSX xpis (osx-xpi?) needs to go in 2 places:
1. inside a new config.ini template file (whose name I need to know)
2. inside the packaging automation (buildcentral) for the actual upload

So far, I have no testcase in the packaging automation for Carbon vs. Classic. 
Looks like this will be the first one.

Comment 5

[Mike Pinkerton (not reading bugmail)]

how about we use macosx-xpi for the dirname and config-macosx.ini_tmpl for the 
name of the tmpl file.

sounds ok?

Comment 6

[Marek Z. Jeziorek]

jj, this is PDT+ bug. Tomorrow, on Tuesday, we'll try to build the
first RTM candidate. It would be good, if this could be resolved ASAP.

Comment 7

[J.J. Enser]

working on it. I now have the hardware available to setup the OSX daily build. 
Should complete today, depending on regular morning verification build completion 
& state of the tree.

Comment 8

[J.J. Enser]

removing PDT+ and nsBranch keywords + lowering severity since we're not going to 
have a MacOS X installer for beta (off of the 0.9.2 branch)

However, I made some progress on this issue and have a couple of approaches to 
resolve the problem.

1. If the _only_ difference between the OS9 and OSX installer's config.ini is the 
URL to the xpis, then we don't need another template file, I can simply have the 
appropriate URL be substituted at packaging time.

2. If we need other changes between classic and X isntallers, like a different 
list of modules or  different UI strings, then I'll use a distinct 
config.ini_macosx_tmpl file as we discussed before.

The code changes to the packaging process in BuildCentral are different depending 
on if we go with 1. or 2.

Comment 9

[J.J. Enser]

Postponed until we have our installer working under X.

Comment 10

[Hong Kwon]

adding dep->89659

Comment 11

[Steve Dagley]

Marking OSX- since the OS X version won't use the same installer as the Classic 
build

Comment 12

[J.J. Enser]

No plan to use our XPinstall-based installer on OSX. -> wontfix

Comment 13

[Grace Bush]

verified