On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Axel Hecht <l...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > as some of you probably noticed, I've been hacking around our localized > builds a bit over the past few weeks. > > Context: > > For https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1362617, I wonder where > to put the generation of res/multilocale.json in a regular build. > And I hope that someone volunteers to tackle l10n repacks for local > artifact builds. > > Status: > > For desktop, we're now at the point where all that we do outside of > browser/locales is jar packaging, and installer packaging. For android, we > just need to move the search stuff from mobile/locales to > mobile/android/locales. > > We're also only running the jar packaging once, and we're only running > repack-l10n.py once. > > I also think we can drop the -j1 from the entry points. > > My hope here is that now that we're only using recursive make in a defined > scope, and that parallelism isn't a problem anymore, we should have a > better chance to get other backends to support repacks? Notably the > artifact builds one? > > The flow of an l10n repack is also constructive now. It's preparing the > localization, possibly getting a repo, and running compare-locales for > l10n-merge. Then it's doing all the jar stuff, and then the app-specific > funkyness like search. > Then it packages the stuff as applicable for the project. One desktop, > that's langpack, package, and possibly full mar. Then it creates a windows > installer if on windows. On mobile, it's just the apk (and full mar?). > > All of this is done by explicit steps in the recipe, and I got rid of > dependencies as much as possible. The dependencies turned out to be primary > pain point, as they weren't dependencies to begin with. > > Questions: > > Where to put multilocale.json, in en-US builds, and in multi-locale > builds, and in single-locale repacks? > > Do we need the XPI_ROOT_APPID='$(XPI_ROOT_APPID)' jazz? That makes the > recipes way more complex than I think they should be. Some conditional > hacks that we have depending on this could be replaced with > IS_LANGUAGE_REPACK ? > XPI_ROOT_APPID feels like something that should be defined once in the entrypoint and shouldn't need to be passed around everywhere. But I have no clue what all is keyed off of it. > > What do we really need to do to support l10n repacks on artifact builds? > The build backend code is above me, sadly. > Conceptually, an artifact build is a glorified cache. At the top of the build we extract files from a previous build into their normal locations in the objdir. And we disable all the build rules that would produce those files. If l10n repacks were implemented as a post-build action that didn't interfere with existing files (e.g. didn't delete binaries or other files from the objdir it didn't itself produce), I would expect l10n repacks to be compatible with artifact builds. The work to actually make them compatible is likely a bunch of configure muckery and ensuring the artifact build backend has enough context to let l10n repacks work. I wouldn't be surprised if we were disabling things required by l10n repacks. > > Which builds should run l10n-check in automation? I see that many things > disable that, and I'd like to have an entry point to run l10n-related > tests. We'll need that. Maybe it's time to have a dedicated TC task for > them? > As many of them as possible. Running l10n-check on any push where we do a build seems like a reasonable target. I'm not sure if there are perf/capacity concerns with that though. Making a dedicated TC task for l10n-check seems reasonable. We try to have more, smaller tasks than fewer, larger tasks. But, there are compelling reasons to shoehorn into an existing task (namely scaling concerns due to large setup/teardown costs or redundancy).
_______________________________________________ dev-builds mailing list dev-builds@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-builds
