Closed Bug 1019117 Opened 10 years ago Closed 10 years ago

Add ssltunnel to b2g desktop build output

Categories

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Emulator, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED
2.0 S5 (4july)

People

(Reporter: mt, Assigned: mt)

References

Details

Attachments

(2 files, 4 obsolete files)

Having ssltunnel in this build will let developers run mochitests for b2g without downloading the entire tests package (as bug 1002545 does).
Blocks: 1002545
No longer depends on: 1002545
Vivien, do you know who can help on this bug?
Flags: needinfo?(21)
Attached patch ssltunnel.patch (deleted) — Splinter Review
From what I have understood, this patch should be enough to package ssltunnel along the build. I have not tried it thought.
Flags: needinfo?(21)
I'm not a expert for FxOS runtime. Fabrice, could you review the patch or know who can help on it?
Flags: needinfo?(fabrice)
Attachment #8441996 - Flags: review+
Flags: needinfo?(fabrice)
I have no experience for landing patch to gecko, :mt, could you help on this?
Flags: needinfo?(martin.thomson)
I tend to rely on having a sheriff help out (that means checkin-needed). But the first step is to make sure that it works. And based on the output of the above try run, it doesn't :( This looks like an interesting warning: Warning: c:\builds\moz2_slave\try-w32_g-00000000000000000000\build\obj-firefox\b2g\installer\package-manifest:517: NO_PKG_FILES contains file listed in manifest: ssltunnel.exe And here's the offending code: http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/installer/packager.mk#595 Seems like someone will need to modify that list somehow. The risk then is that we cause firefox builds to have ssltunnel added, which we'd want to avoid.
Flags: needinfo?(martin.thomson)
Attached patch Removing ssltunnel from package blacklist r=? (obsolete) (deleted) — Splinter Review
Comment on attachment 8446197 [details] [diff] [review] Removing ssltunnel from package blacklist r=? It turns out that we need this for Mulet and B2G desktop builds. I'm running a test now to see if this accidentally drops the executable into the wrong packages (local testing indicates that it doesn't).
Attachment #8446197 - Flags: review?(mh+mozilla)
Comment on attachment 8446197 [details] [diff] [review] Removing ssltunnel from package blacklist r=? Review of attachment 8446197 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- This would add the file to e.g. xulrunner. You need to keep it there when MOZ_PKG_MANIFEST is not defined.
Attachment #8446197 - Flags: review?(mh+mozilla) → review-
unassign myself since I can't help on it and Vivien and :mt are working on it.
Assignee: yurenju.mozilla → nobody
Is this an addition that would make it tolerable? +ifndef MOZ_PKG_MANIFEST +NO_PKG_FILES += ssltunnel* +endif + I notice that there are a couple of places that don't supply manifests, but this would prevent them from getting ssltunnel. Alternatively, I could make the entire blacklist conditional on having a manifest: with a manifest there would be no exclusions; without a manifest you get the whole blacklist. Would that be better?
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
(In reply to Martin Thomson [:mt] from comment #12) > Alternatively, I could make the entire blacklist conditional on having a > manifest: with a manifest there would be no exclusions; without a manifest > you get the whole blacklist. Would that be better? The blacklist is actually useful even when there's a manifest. Those files are not supposed to be packaged by some overeager wildcard.
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
Comment on attachment 8447491 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=? So this moves ssltunnel into a special adjunct.
Attachment #8447491 - Flags: review?(mh+mozilla)
Attachment #8446197 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8447491 - Flags: review?(mh+mozilla) → review+
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=0de4ce1c1e5f Ready to go pending a sanity check on the output of that.
And it is good that I checked: stray backslash in there... This is better: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=875cfd68119b
Comment on attachment 8447491 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=? Stray backslash in this version.
Attachment #8447491 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 8449708 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=glandium r=glandium
Attachment #8449708 - Flags: review+
Attachment #8449708 - Attachment description: Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=? → Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=glandium
Attachment #8449708 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8449708 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 8449709 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=glandium Carrying r+ from :glandium
Attachment #8449709 - Flags: review+
OK, now that everything checks out, let's get this in there so that we can move on bug 1002545.
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment on attachment 8449709 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=glandium I have got some serious problems with my head. I checked and double checked and the backslash was gone, but here it is.
Attachment #8449709 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8449709 - Flags: review+ → review-
Comment on attachment 8450381 [details] [diff] [review] Remove ssltunnel from NO_PKG_FILES conditional on having no manifest r=glandium r=glandium and yes, this has no backslash.
Attachment #8450381 - Flags: review+
Assignee: nobody → martin.thomson
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Keywords: checkin-needed
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 2.0 S5 (4july)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: