Use BRANDING for IE CEEE. Simplify chrome_dll_version handling.

Use BRANDING settings for IE CEEE. Simplify chrome_dll_version handling.

Adding new CEEE_PRODUCT_FULLNAME key to the BRANDING file. Adapting version.h.in to define a preprocessor constant for it. Using this and the other version/product name constants in IE CEEE's .rc files.

Piggybacking on MAD's recent changes to make %NAME% a variable in the .rgs files to fairly easily get the product name from branding in there. Naming the toolband with the product name directly (as it is what shows up in IE's View/Toolbars menu), the BHO with an added "Helper" and the broker with an added "Broker".

Removing the 'chrome_dll_version' target from chrome.gyp, and skipping code generation of chrome_dll_version.rc. Instead we have a source file with that name, that includes the verson.h generated by the 'chrome_version_header' target. This is cleaner and less code generation.

Fixing 'chrome_dll_nacl64' target, it seemed like it wanted to have version information, but it didn't.

Cleaning up the way sources are specified in several of the chrome_tests.gypi targets, to use fewer source! statements just to remove source files that are Windows-only (put them in the Windows-only section instead).

BUG=none
TEST=Visible change should be that user-visible names in Chromium builds are like "Chromium Extensions Execution Environment" (with "Broker" or "Helper" appended when appropriate), i.e. they lose the "Google" part.

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=67457

[Jói, 2010-11-24 03:46:31]

Hi MAD,

I need to find an appropriate reviewer for the changes to BRANDING and
version.h.in, but wanted to ask you to take a look first.

Cheers,
Jói

[Jói, 2010-11-24 19:44:45]

Hi Rahul,

Looks like you would be a suitable reviewer for the change to the BRANDING file.
MAD will review the rest.

Cheers,
Jói

[rahulk, 2010-11-24 20:32:41]

for chromium/BRANDING I think you would want to call it 'Chromium
Extensions...'

To change for Google Chrome you would need to change google_chrome/BRANDING
in internal repository and the name probably should be 'Google Chrome
Extensions...'

--- a/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
+++ b/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
@@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ COMPANY_FULLNAME=The Chromium Authors
 COMPANY_SHORTNAME=The Chromium Authors
 PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chromium
 PRODUCT_SHORTNAME=Chromium
-COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2009 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
Reserved.
+CEEE_PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chrome Extensions Execution Environment
+COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2010 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
Reserved.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, <joi@chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi Rahul,
>
> Looks like you would be a suitable reviewer for the change to the BRANDING
> file.
> MAD will review the rest.
>
> Cheers,
> Jói
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/
>

[Jói, 2010-11-24 20:46:24]

PTAL

Thanks, I wasn't sure and had sent a question to aa@ because my
impression had been that extensions were always referred to as "Chrome
Extensions". I think Chromium makes sense here, have changed it and
uploaded a new version.

Cheers,
Jói


On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Rahul Kuchhal <rahulk@google.com> wrote:
> for chromium/BRANDING I think you would want to call it 'Chromium
> Extensions...'
> To change for Google Chrome you would need to change google_chrome/BRANDING
> in internal repository and the name probably should be 'Google Chrome
> Extensions...'
>
> --- a/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
> +++ b/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
> @@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ COMPANY_FULLNAME=The Chromium Authors
>  COMPANY_SHORTNAME=The Chromium Authors
>  PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chromium
>  PRODUCT_SHORTNAME=Chromium
> -COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2009 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
> Reserved.
> +CEEE_PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chrome Extensions Execution Environment
> +COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2010 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
> Reserved.
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, <joi@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rahul,
>>
>> Looks like you would be a suitable reviewer for the change to the BRANDING
>> file.
>> MAD will review the rest.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jói
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/
>
>

[rahulk, 2010-11-24 21:15:07]

lgtm for BRANDING changes.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Jói Sigurðsson <joi@chromium.org> wrote:

> PTAL
>
> Thanks, I wasn't sure and had sent a question to aa@ because my
> impression had been that extensions were always referred to as "Chrome
> Extensions". I think Chromium makes sense here, have changed it and
> uploaded a new version.
>
> Cheers,
> Jói
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Rahul Kuchhal <rahulk@google.com> wrote:
> > for chromium/BRANDING I think you would want to call it 'Chromium
> > Extensions...'
> > To change for Google Chrome you would need to change
> google_chrome/BRANDING
> > in internal repository and the name probably should be 'Google Chrome
> > Extensions...'
> >
> > --- a/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
> > +++ b/chrome/app/theme/chromium/BRANDING
> > @@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ COMPANY_FULLNAME=The Chromium Authors
> >  COMPANY_SHORTNAME=The Chromium Authors
> >  PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chromium
> >  PRODUCT_SHORTNAME=Chromium
> > -COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2009 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
> > Reserved.
> > +CEEE_PRODUCT_FULLNAME=Chrome Extensions Execution Environment
> > +COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2006-2010 The Chromium Authors. All Rights
> > Reserved.
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM, <joi@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Rahul,
> >>
> >> Looks like you would be a suitable reviewer for the change to the
> BRANDING
> >> file.
> >> MAD will review the rest.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jói
> >>
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/
> >
> >
>

[MAD, 2010-11-24 23:03:55]

LGTM with small nits...

Thanks!

BYE
MAD

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_h...
File ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_helper_object.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_h...
ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_helper_object.cc:137: if (broker_rpc_ != NULL)
You'll need to sync and merge again, this should be gone now... Stupid mistake
on my part... :-/

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scr...
File ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scripting.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scr...
ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scripting.gyp:22: '<(DEPTH)/base/base.gyp:base',
move up base and ceee/common?

[Jói, 2010-11-25 23:13:41]

+robertshield to review various .gyp changes

The change grew a bit bigger as I was fighting weirdness with the
'chrome_dll_version' target, so I decided to remove the whole target and depend
instead on the 'chrome_version_header' which is cleaner and means we do less
code generation.

MAD, I addressed your nit as well.

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_h...
File ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_helper_object.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_h...
ceee/ie/plugin/bho/browser_helper_object.cc:137: if (broker_rpc_ != NULL)
On 2010/11/24 23:03:56, mad1 wrote:
> You'll need to sync and merge again, this should be gone now... Stupid mistake
> on my part... :-/

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scr...
File ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scripting.gyp (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/7001/ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scr...
ceee/ie/plugin/scripting/scripting.gyp:22: '<(DEPTH)/base/base.gyp:base',
On 2010/11/24 23:03:56, mad1 wrote:
> move up base and ceee/common?

Done.

[Jói, 2010-11-26 11:59:06]

Thanks Robert.

Deferring last LGTM to MAD.

Cheers,
Jói

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_tests.gypi
File chrome/chrome_tests.gypi (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_tests.gypi#ne...
chrome/chrome_tests.gypi:31:
'browser/policy/proto/device_management_proto.gyp:device_management_proto_cpp',
On 2010/11/26 11:45:05, robertshield wrote:
> This looks like a merge artifact, please confirm that it is intentional.

It's intentional, see the last line of the check-in description, "Also added a
missing dependency to the 'test_support_common' target, that I discovered when
doing a clobber build on the trybots. "

Looks like before this, any clobber build would be broken on tip of tree,
although it's possible that it was succeeding by fluke before my other GYP
changes. The error I was seeing is at
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win/builds/4473/steps...

[MAD, 2010-11-26 13:28:15]

Wow, very good cleanup... Thanks Jói!

LGTM with two minuscule sorting nits... ;-)

BYE
MAD

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi
File chrome/chrome_dll.gypi (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi#newc...
chrome/chrome_dll.gypi:573: 'chrome_version_header',
Why after nacl?

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi#newc...
chrome/chrome_dll.gypi:582: 'app/chrome_dll_version.rc',
above chrome_main?

[Jói, 2010-11-26 16:07:27]

Addressed nits, merged with head (where it turns out someone else made the
change for the 'test_support_common' target, so I've removed my conflicting
change and removed mention of that from the CL description). About to commit.

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi
File chrome/chrome_dll.gypi (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi#newc...
chrome/chrome_dll.gypi:573: 'chrome_version_header',
On 2010/11/26 13:28:16, mad1 wrote:
> Why after nacl?

No reason, I moved it to the first line of dependencies.

http://codereview.chromium.org/5360002/diff/30001/chrome/chrome_dll.gypi#newc...
chrome/chrome_dll.gypi:582: 'app/chrome_dll_version.rc',
On 2010/11/26 13:28:16, mad1 wrote:
> above chrome_main?

Done.