I filed bug 1274659 [1] to track this proposal and attempted to summarize the issues brought up. Please add any technical comments and blocking bugs there.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1274659 -e On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Tobias B. Besemer < tobias.bese...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am Freitag, 20. Mai 2016 01:48:24 UTC+2 schrieb Robert Strong: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tobias B. Besemer wrote: > > > > > Am Freitag, 13. Mai 2016 22:41:01 UTC+2 schrieb Benjamin Smedberg: > > > > We have considered this, but in the grand rollout plans for 64-bit > > > Firefox > > > > it's low on the list. We're still dealing with Flash > > > sandboxing/functional > > > > regressions as a blocker for wider rollout, and the next step is > probably > > > > to progressively roll out win64 to new users before we consider > anything > > > > for existing users. > > > > > > > > This will be much easier now that we have widevine and are dropping > > > > npapi/silverlight, but addon compat is also a concern and we wanted > to > > > > partly wait for webextensions before pushing more on this. > > > > > > > > --BDS > > > > > > Sounds like a plan for me! > > > Maybe there can be a ship of a installer that include 32bit & 64bit? > > > Or at least have one web-installer for both versions? > > > Also giving the user the change to make a easy upgrade from 32bit to > 64bit > > > with the offline-installer would be nice and a good test-drive for a > future > > > auto-update... > > > > > The installer does not equal auto-update. Two separate things entirely. > > Download size for a combined installer is not something we want to do to > > people on slow network connection but the auto selection via the stub > > installer is planned though no completion date yet due to other work > having > > priority. > > The idea was to test the upgrade from 32bit to 64bit first with the > offline installer because it should effect less people and would be maybe a > good test for all the routines/logic behind it like e.g. uninstall > something, moving files, or something like this... > > If not to much work, I would prefer to have one 32bit/64bit-installer for > people who don't know the difference... (as default download.) > Single Just-32bit/64bit-installer can persist for people who know for what > they have to looking for... (AFAICR other project did/do the same.) (At > least with just-English and multi-lang installers...) > > As I didn't knew how Mozilla will handle the switch... if - like by IE - > there will be 32bit/64bit parallel, or like Chrome do it, just one > version... I installed from each channel both version on my system and > created a bunch of icons for it, because the version overwrite ATM the > icons from each other... > I guess that a lot of people have the almost same scenario (both > versions), but by mistake and don't realize it! > So a routine (first in offline installer) in the 64bit version that check > if a (old) 32bit version exist too on the system and when, then de-install > it while install/update the 64bit version would be (IMHO) nice. > (Can test this and make QA.) > > Also I would like to see a error msg in future (or at least a big warning) > if a user try to use the 32bit installer on a 64bit system. > > AFAIK there is also no MozillaMaintenanceService as 64bit now... > > ...and the MozillaMaintenanceService should also block to install a 32bit > version on a 64bit Win (even normally no-one use this installer manual) and > uninstall 32bit if 64bit gets installed or updated. > > A long open wish from me (and I guess others, too) would be to see in > future a multi-lang web-installer. Should also make things easier... > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
