976976 - Update Binary Components rationale to cover existing practice

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org :: Pages & Content, defect)

Description

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

From bug 896762:

"As an aside, we don't redistribute the D3D9X DLL anymore, but redistribute the D3DCompiler DLL. The example rationale is a bit out of date."

We should update
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale/
to reflect our rationale for shipping this component.

emk: are you able to explain in simple language what we use this component for? Is it something that comes with later Windows but we need to ship it for older ones, as was true of D3D9X? 

Gerv

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Oh, and we need to update about:license to correctly list the Windows bits we are redistributing.

Gerv

Comment 2

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #0)
> emk: are you able to explain in simple language what we use this component
> for?

First of all, I recommend some English native speakers choose the wording.
That said, most descriptions about the D3D9X DLL will also apply to the D3DCompiler DLL. The D3DCompiler DLL is needed to enable ANGLE in our products. The D3D9X DLL was also needed in the past, but we removed the dependency. The dependency to the D3DCompiler DLL is very hard to remove.

> Is it something that comes with later Windows but we need to ship it
> for older ones, as was true of D3D9X? 

Basically, yes. d3dcompiler_47.dll is shipped with Windows 8.1. But if we support older versions of Windows, we need to bundle the DLL.

Comment 3

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

emk: Do older versions of d3dcompiler_XX.dll come with older versions of Windows? If so, is there a reason we can't just use whatever version comes with the Windows the user is running on?

Gerv

Comment 4

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #3)
> emk: Do older versions of d3dcompiler_XX.dll come with older versions of
> Windows? If so, is there a reason we can't just use whatever version comes
> with the Windows the user is running on?

Windows 8.1 is the first version which ships the D3DCompiler DLL.
Until then, users had to install DirectX End User Runtime to obtain a copy of the D3DCompiler DLL. So we can't assume users already have the DLL.

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

And to be clear: d3dcompiler_XX.dll (where XX is currently 47) is the only D3D-related DLL we are shipping at the moment?

Gerv

Comment 6

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #5)
> And to be clear: d3dcompiler_XX.dll (where XX is currently 47) is the only
> D3D-related DLL we are shipping at the moment?

Yes.

Comment 7

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

How large is the DLL, in K?

Gerv

Comment 8

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #7)
> How large is the DLL, in K?

3,372KB on my machine. (Currently we are shipping only x86 binaries for Windows, so this is the size of the x86 DLL.)

Comment 9

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Wow, that's huge. Firefox 1.0 was a < 5MB download! How much is it compressed (i.e. in the installer)?

Gerv

Comment 10

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

I have to apply hATrayflood's patch to measure the size. Please wait a while...
FYI our installer is already 30MB large :)

Comment 11

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

Wow, Windows 8.1 SDK download is unavailable anymore!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/bg162891.aspx
WTF!?

Comment 12

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Could be an MS website glitch?

Gerv

Comment 13

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

Luckily VS2013 Express for Windows desktop contained 8.1 SDK.
Maybe nobody installed the standalone SDK, so nobody noticed the 404.

(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #9)
> Wow, that's huge. Firefox 1.0 was a < 5MB download! How much is it
> compressed (i.e. in the installer)?

The installer size was 31,503KB without the patch and 31,986KB with the patch (483KB increase).
Note that the former includes d3dcompiler_43.dll.

Comment 14

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Attachment: Patch v.1

Is this technically accurate?

Gerv

Comment 15

[Masatoshi Kimura [:emk]]

Comment on attachment 8383556 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v.1

I don't know the current market share of Intel graphic cards. Otherwise looks good.

Comment 16

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/1794

Gerv

Comment 17

[[github robot]]

Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/4ab304b7fdbbc0d1457a41769a0fe578d6574429
Bug 976976 - Update Binary Components rationale to cover existing practice. r=emk.

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d1274b194dd067495da022d4f8e5e9b15e96c6ec
Merge pull request #1794 from gerv/master

Bug 976976 - Update Binary Components rationale to cover existing practice.

Comment 18

[raymond [:retornam] (inactive)]

on stage http://www.allizom.org/en-US/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale/

Comment 19

[raymond [:retornam] (inactive)]

verified fixed http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale/