New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
firefox: Fixes build with rust 1.33 #57175
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for looking into this. 👍
The changes do not quiet work out for all our flavors. I left a few comments with ideas.
For demonstration purposes:
@GrahamcOfBorg build firefox-esr-60
@@ -92,6 +92,15 @@ let | |||
|
|||
browserPatches = [ | |||
./env_var_for_system_dir.patch | |||
(fetchpatch { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do not think that these belong here. They do not apply to say firefox-esr-60
. We are building a lot of different FireFox flavors from the same common expressions. The tor browsers also use this expression.
There is two ways I could see this work:
- Find a generic solution that works on "all" the flavors.
- Use a patch specific to the flavor. E.g. pull from the ESR repo when building the ESR version(s) etc..
I prefer the 2nd approach as that will allow us to remove that from specific versions without triggering rebuilds of all the others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there already an example for doing this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
and
are two examples how we do patches per flavor.
url = "https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/raw-rev/4f2e84dc490d"; | ||
sha256 = "18ba9riwplchii60664j2shydb19s2gyd3jldr1225bqj3wky521"; | ||
}) | ||
./fix-build-with-rust-1.33.patch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there some source we could fetch the patch from or did you write it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I needed to adapt this patch, because the original did not apply.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All fine with me. I'd just drop a line where it originally came from in case we have to follow up on that in the future.
cff3ab7
to
42e99eb
Compare
@andir added the requested changes. |
@GrahamcOfBorg build firefox-esr-60 |
@andir I think building firefox on CI takes a little bit too much time^^ |
Well the point was that the ESR release probably still fails to build with the bumped rustc. I did not expect so many intermediate packages to still be built. That is also what I was trying to hint to in my previous comments. We can not just apply that patch for |
@andir https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/60.6.0/ does this version maybe fix the build for esr? |
I am trying to figure that out by building https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-unified/rev/FIREFOX_60_6_0esr_BUILD2 on top of the current staging branch. Will report back once I have results. |
@bkchr they did not include the rust fixes in the 60.6 release I tried. The patch seems to be compatible if we remove/adjust a bit of the context. I'll try to work on that in the next day if you do not beat me to it :-) |
(triage) Firefox ESR 60's latest version appears to be 60.9.0. Does this version fix the issue? If not, what command line can show the problem? ( |
This pr is probably outdated and can be closed. @Ekleog what is the problem you see? |
@bkchr I haven't been able to reproduce any issue, but didn't want to close the PR without certainty as I didn't know how to reproduce the initial issue either -- all good to close for me :) |
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)