[00:54] <asac> off
[03:08] <[reed]> asac: ping?
[08:35] <asac> [reed]: yes?
[08:58] <asac> debian bug 470128
[08:58] <ubotu> Debian bug 470128 in icedove "xulrunner: FTBFS with libnss3-dev=3.12.0~beta2-1" [Serious,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/470128
[10:16] <asac> [reed]: are b4 rc2 builds looking good?
[10:36] <armin76> asac: that bug is old
[10:36] <asac> yes
[10:36] <asac> i know
[10:37] <asac> its just that some guy told me that i should fix that bug id in debian
[10:37] <asac> just wanted to know what bug that is
[10:38] <armin76> ah
[10:52]  * asac hates if people just refer to bug ids without including at least a title ;)
[11:11] <asac> i really go crazy if i read the bug 178558
[11:11] <asac> i mean ... i posted a test package and are there any comments about that recently? no, of course not
[11:11] <asac> those folks don't deserve to get a fix ;)
[11:17] <asac> answer: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xulrunner-1.9/+bug/178558/comments/36
[11:17] <asac> hope that is still "nice" enough
[11:18] <asac> (in line with the ubuntu etiquette)
[11:22] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 178558 in xulrunner-1.9 "Firefox 3.0 makes everything annoyingly huge" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/178558
[12:00] <armin76> haha
[12:02] <asac> yeah :) ... thats how things work ;)
[16:07] <cwong1_> asac: ping
[16:18] <asac> cwong1_: hi
[16:19] <cwong1_> asac:  Couple of things I want to discuss with you:
[16:19] <cwong1_> asac: 1) Do you have any changes that you want to check in?
[16:19] <asac> yes. sorry that i was rather in active in the recent past
[16:19] <asac> got dragged in lots of other things
[16:19] <cwong1_> np
[16:20] <cwong1_> we all do :)
[16:20] <asac> cwong1_: i have a hald ported ffox 3 beta3 thing
[16:20] <asac> s/hald/half/
[16:20] <asac> but maybe we should go directly for beta 4 which is about to be released today or so
[16:20] <asac> at least the CVS is tagged already
[16:20] <asac> whatelse?
[16:20] <cwong1_> that sounds good to me.  I was going to suggest the same.
[16:21] <cwong1_> 2)  I want to hold off the switch to Xulrunner
[16:21] <asac> great
[16:21] <asac> hold of?
[16:21] <asac> thought we wanted to use a mobile specific fork
[16:22] <cwong1_> I have a lot of bugs to work on and I dont think I can get to it in the next week or 2
[16:22] <cwong1_> unless you have the time :) :)
[16:22] <asac> i can look
[16:22] <asac> maybe we can spin both binaries from the same source
[16:22] <asac> (as we already have all in there)
[16:22] <asac> but lets first do beta4
[16:23] <asac> is jimmy avail?
[16:23] <cwong1_> ok beta4 first
[16:23] <cwong1_> he also looking into bugs.
[16:23] <cwong1_> btw do you know of a plugin that is equivalent to window media plugin
[16:23] <cwong1_> ?
[16:23] <asac> for that i would need to know what "window media plugin" is :)
[16:24] <asac> what does it do compared to totem?
[16:24] <cwong1_> it plays window media files and totem doesn't
[16:24] <[reed]> asac: yep, releasing today
[16:25] <asac> [reed]: thanks
[16:25] <asac> cwong1_: totem doesn't?
[16:25] <[reed]> unless something disastrous happens
[16:25] <[reed]> but hopefully not ;)
[16:25] <asac> cwong1_: you have a test file?
[16:25] <[reed]> asac: can you comment in mozilla bug 418885 about what you think?
[16:25] <asac> [reed]: i think i will release the bits in a few hours then :)
[16:25] <asac> ubotu: wake up
[16:26] <cwong1_> asac:  I will send u a test site shortly...
[16:26] <asac> cwong1_: i thought it was .wmv files. to play those its just a matter of codec (unless you are talking about DRM)
[16:26] <cwong1_> asac: is there a wmv codec for totem?
[16:27] <asac> Bug 418885 – Firefox 3 shouldn't require GTK+ 2.10 (edit)
[16:27] <asac> [reed]: that sounds lame ;)
[16:27] <[reed]> I want to WONTFIX it
[16:27] <[reed]> ;)
[16:27] <asac> [reed]: reading the title i would say "yes"
[16:27] <asac> but let me read the content in a few more minutes
[16:28] <asac> cwong1_: i am not sure if it plays all ... at least i have been watching wmv files happily for quite some time
[16:28] <[reed]> we're not changing our minimum (of 2.10), but there is a possibility we'll add some checks to at least allow 2.8 to work somewhat
[16:28] <[reed]> even if they can't print
[16:28] <asac> cwong1_: other players that might play more files are vlc + mplayer
[16:28] <asac> cwong1_: those should ship all the codecs they support out of the box
[16:29] <asac> cwong1_: i think to get all available codecs you need to install:
[16:29] <asac> gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse
[16:29] <asac> gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse
[16:29] <asac> gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly
[16:29] <asac> gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad
[16:29] <cwong1_> asac: I knew about mplyaer, but never heard of vlc. I will give them a try and see.
[16:30] <asac> gstreamer0.10-plugins-good
[16:30] <cwong1_> I did install gstreamer0.10*  and still couldn't play some of the files
[16:30] <cwong1_> I will find the site and let you know in a few minutes..
[16:31] <asac> cwong1_: gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
[16:31] <asac> then i don't know
[16:31] <asac> only thing i can imagine is that those files are DRM enabled ... for which you are unlikely to find a free implementation i guess
[16:31] <asac> cwong1_: thanks ... i will be travelling in a few, but will catch up on work later - so probably a better time for you :)
[16:32] <cwong1_> ok
[16:32] <cwong1_> later
[16:34] <asac> [reed]: hmm ... if the patch work ten i don't know why not to take it :) ... it would allow us to provide backports of firefox 3 for dapper for instance
[16:34] <asac> which is still supported for quite some time
[16:34] <[reed]> asac: well, see caillon's comments
[16:34] <[reed]> where he plans on backporting Fx3 back to RHEL 2.1
[16:37] <asac> yes ... just read that
[16:37] <asac> i doubt that he will succeed on a gtk 1 port ;)
[16:39] <asac> [reed]: http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=101
[16:39] <asac> i always understood the phrase "Older distros will be able to have build-time support/workarounds as necessary, but Mozilla will not ship or test builds for older platforms. "
[16:40] <asac> that those tweaks should go the mozilla CVS ... though disabled during compile time
[16:40] <asac> note that there is a conflict here: distros are not allowed to ship arbitrary patches without getting review on them first
[16:41] <asac> huge patches because of old gtk+ should thus be reviewed in bugzilla
[16:41] <asac> we could keep them unapplied then, but that makes it harder to reuse those.
[16:41] <ubotu> Mozilla bug 418885 in OS Integration "Firefox 3 shouldn't require GTK+ 2.10" [Normal,Assigned] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418885
[16:41] <ubotu> Sorry, I don't know anything about wake up - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi
[16:41] <asac> for instance caillon will create patches for supporting the old gtk
[16:41] <asac> maybe he submits them to mconnor who either trusts him or tries to get a review
[16:42] <asac> from someone else
[16:42] <asac> i guess it would end up: post a bug and get a review+
[16:42] <asac> but then its hard for other distros to find all the required pieces and all that
[16:42] <asac> ... so in the end a hard question
[16:42] <asac> but for now i agree, that 2.8 doesn't need to be supported
[16:42] <asac> at least not at runtime
[16:43] <asac> i am fine with wontfixing this
[17:59] <Ubulette> hi
[17:59] <Ubulette> wontfix for me too
[18:04] <Ubulette> asac, i didn't add libsqlite3-dev on purpose
[18:05] <Ubulette> it's not used and will not be in hardy anyway
[18:57] <asac> right ... but it doesn't hurt. otherwise its not even really optional
[19:28] <Ubulette> asac, could we stop naming nspr with the gecko version ?
[19:29] <asac> Ubulette: why?
[19:29] <Ubulette> now, nspr claims #define PR_VERSION  "4.7.1 Beta"
[19:30] <Ubulette> or a last put the full version in front
[19:30] <Ubulette> like 4.7.1~b~1.9~b4
[19:31] <asac> Ubulette: how does the version read atm?
[19:31] <Ubulette> 4.7.0~1.9b3-0ubuntu2
[19:31] <Ubulette> ie, it doesn't respect the full nspr version
[19:32] <Ubulette> same for nss
[19:34] <asac> Ubulette: i have no problem to squeeze in a ~beta~
[19:34] <asac> i think the main point was that there was no real version at some point
[19:34] <asac> so mike just choose somethign reasonable
[19:35] <asac> Ubulette: is there a tag that reads liks 4.7.1 beta now?
[19:35] <asac> i think the problem was that they didn't tag the version with an nspr'ish version... but just with the firefox release tag
[19:37] <Ubulette> doesn't matter much, we can still fetch it using a gecko tag but name it like we want
[19:39] <Ubulette> NSPR_4_7_1_BETA1
[19:39] <Ubulette> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5549/
[19:41] <asac> Ubulette: yes ... but it wasn't really clear how to name it at that point
[19:41] <asac> i think the error was to use 4.7.1~1.9 ... instead of 4.7.1~~1.9
[19:41] <asac> so yes ... go for 4.7.1~beta~1.9+... if you have a better feeling about that
[19:42] <Ubulette> k
[19:44] <Ubulette> NSS_HEAD_BEFORE_RFC4507BIS
[19:58] <Ubulette>  ** The format of the version string is
[19:58] <Ubulette>  **     "<major version>.<minor version>[.<patch level>] [<Beta>]"
[19:58] <Ubulette> it's even documented
[20:11] <Ubulette> asac, it still doesn't solve how I can name my snapshots to keep them intertwined with the official releases we do here
[20:12] <Ubulette> nspr_4.7.1~beta~~cvs20080310t1054.orig.tar.gz is no good
[20:15] <asac> indeed
[20:16] <asac> why not 4.7.1~beta~1.9b4~cvs... ?
[20:17] <Ubulette> how could mozclient identify 1.9b4 just from nspr sources ?
[20:22] <RainCT> asac: hey
[20:24] <asac> RainCT: hi
[20:24] <asac> RainCT: i have a question :)
[20:24] <asac> why did you remove the upstrema sources from your branch?
[20:24] <asac> (the extension?)
[20:25] <RainCT> asac: because I find it easier to work with it that way
[20:25] <asac> how easier?
[20:25] <asac> what steps are easier?
[20:25] <RainCT> or is there some problem with that?
[20:26] <asac> well ... i would love to have a single approach for all extensions ... if you really want to keep it that way, then i am fine
[20:26] <asac> point is that extensions are so tiny that I'd prefer not to have patch system in them
[20:26] <RainCT> dunno.. I don't remember the actual reason, but I also find it cleaner and that
[20:26] <asac> ok.
[20:27] <asac> RainCT: so what do you want?
[20:27] <RainCT> shouldn't be a problem to add it again though..
[20:28] <RainCT> well.. help on getting it working :P
[20:28] <asac> maybe consider that. its easier for new contributors to just have the upstream sources in there ... and so on.
[20:28] <asac> anyway ...what doesn't work?
[20:28] <RainCT> asac: I tried installing it but I don't see it in Firefox 3
[20:29] <asac> hmm ... did you try to use the xpi.mk i introduced recently in mozilla-devscripts?
[20:29] <RainCT> (don't know if it works with Firefox 2 as I don't have it installed anymore)
[20:29] <asac> that should automize all
[20:29] <RainCT> no, looking at that :)
[20:29] <asac> you just need to specify an extension name + a build command
[20:29] <asac> (that expects a .xpi to be produced)
[20:29] <asac> RainCT: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Firefox3Extensions/Packaging
[20:30] <asac> thats the document i used at my extension packaging session
[20:30] <asac> it should work for all trees that can produce a proper .xpi
[20:30] <RainCT> oh, forgot to read that at the end.. :P
[20:30] <RainCT> s/that/the packaging season log
[20:31] <RainCT> is xpi.mk already in Hardy?
[20:31] <asac> yes
[20:31] <asac> you can look at some other extension
[20:31] <asac> e.g. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jetsaredim/firefox-extensions/mozgest.ubuntu/annotate/jgreenwa%404lom-20080227214222-fruivuu7tfxwbcka?file_id=rules-20080227041249-6uckd8mo559wu2sf-6
[20:31] <Ubulette> asac, you can remove the mention of your ppa, it's no longer needed
[20:31] <asac> where?
 RainCT: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Firefox3Extensions/Packaging
[20:31] <asac> ah
[20:31] <asac> Ubulette: its in hardy, right?
[20:32] <Ubulette> !info mozilla-devscripts
[20:32] <ubotu> Package mozilla-devscripts does not exist in gutsy
[20:32] <Ubulette> !info mozilla-devscripts hardy
[20:32] <ubotu> mozilla-devscripts (source: mozilla-devscripts): Collection of dev scripts used by Ubuntu Mozilla packages. In component universe, is optional. Version 0.05 (hardy), package size 14 kB, installed size 108 kB
[20:32] <Ubulette> yes
[20:32] <asac> Ubulette: ok done
[20:32] <Ubulette> thx
[20:33] <asac> btw ... if all goes well mozilla-devscripts will go into main
[20:33] <asac> to produce the translation .xpis
[20:34] <Ubulette> you can remove the whole line, it's already listed above
[20:34] <asac> oh :)
[20:34] <asac> ok done :) (2nd)
[20:38] <RainCT> asac: Vcs-Bzr is accepted now (no XS- necessary)
[20:39]  * RainCT says this because of XPI.TEMPLATE
[20:39] <asac> oh :)
[20:39] <asac> thanks
[20:39] <RainCT> np :)
[20:40] <RainCT> also, mozilla-devscripts in hardy is version 0.05 but the template says 0.5~
[20:40] <asac> thanks
[20:40] <asac> done
[20:41] <asac> RainCT: right .. but thats a lower bound and should be ok
[20:41] <asac> i have another great candidate: all-in-one-sidebar
[20:41] <asac> its tri-licensed
[20:42] <asac> :)
[20:42] <asac> and appears to be 3.0 compatible already
[20:42] <RainCT> asac: will xpi.mk autodetect the .xpi if it's created on build time and inside debian/?
[20:43] <asac> yes
[20:43] <asac> oh
[20:43] <asac> no
[20:43] <asac> RainCT: why is it in debian/ ?
[20:43] <RainCT> oh, there's a BUILD_COMMAND option
[20:43] <asac> yes
[20:43] <asac> BUILD_COMMAND ... and you can also explicitly name the .xpi to pack-up
[20:43] <RainCT> I've this right now:    perl ./create_xpi.pl debian/adblockplus.xpi
[20:44] <asac> yeah ... just use adblockplus.xpi
[20:44] <asac> clean will auto delete it form there
[20:44] <RainCT> should I change it to this?    MOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND = perl ./create_xpi.pl adblockplus.xpi
[20:44] <asac> yes
[20:44] <asac> makes sense imo
[20:44] <asac> if you have issues let me know :) ... this xpi.mk certainly doesn't cover all cases yet :)
[20:45] <asac> use :)
[20:45] <asac> aeh :=
[20:45] <asac> MOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND :perl ./create_xpi.pl ...
[20:45] <asac> MOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND := perl ./create_xpi.pl ...
[20:45] <RainCT> will it automatically add the dependencies for unzipping and all that?
[20:47] <asac> yes
[20:47] <asac> everything thats needed by itself will be added
[20:47] <asac> if you need anything else because of perl you need to add that
[20:48] <asac> oh wait :)
[20:48] <asac> no right :) ... oyu confused me ;)
[20:48] <asac> all shold be fine ... just add mozilla-devscripts to build-depedns
[20:49] <RainCT> ok, cool :)
[20:49] <RainCT> create_xpi.pl needs zip; I've to add this one manually, or?
[20:50] <asac> RainCT: yes
[20:50] <asac> xpi.mk just needs unzip
[20:53] <RainCT> asac: http://paste.ubuntu-nl.org/59182/
[20:55] <asac> RainCT: you need to drop your .install files
[20:55] <asac> and your .links
[20:55] <asac> that happens automatically now
[20:56] <asac> or don't you have any?
[20:56] <RainCT> oops, right
[20:56] <RainCT> :$
[20:56] <asac> good
[21:05] <RainCT> asac: adblock-plus should also be compatible with those:   iceweasel (>= 1.5) | seamonkey-browser (>= 1.0) | iceape-browser (>= 1.0) | midbrowser (>= 0.2)
[21:06] <RainCT> what should I do with them? just remove that from debian/control?
[21:06] <asac> no you can add more applications to xpi.mk
[21:07] <asac> RainCT: look in xpi.mk file for MOZ_XPI_MOZILLA_DIRS
[21:07] <asac> default is firefox-addons i guess ... you can add whatever you want
[21:07] <asac> so add iceape seamonkey midbrowser iceweasel
[21:07] <asac> and firefox + firefox-addons
[21:09] <Ubulette> i use it with prism too but it's tricky
[21:09] <Ubulette> as prism doesn't show the red sign
[21:10] <asac> RainCT: is midbrowser in upstream install.rdf?
[21:10] <asac> that would be cool ;)
[21:10] <RainCT> asac: yes
[21:20] <asac> Ubulette: how about renaming the mozclient branch?
[21:20] <asac> you think its mature enough to get a real name ;)
[21:20] <asac> hehe
[21:20] <Ubulette> yes
[21:21] <asac> will u do?
[21:21]  * Ubulette thinking of a name not too long
[21:22] <Ubulette> i'm up since 6am so my mind is blank
[21:23] <asac> Ubulette: hehe :) ... how about mozilla-devscripts for now?
[21:23] <Ubulette> locally, i will call it mozilla-devscripts.dev
[21:23] <Ubulette> or without .dev is good too
[21:23] <asac> can we cann it that way on launchpad?
[21:24] <asac> i think .dev is good for the development branch
[21:24] <asac> s/cann/call/
[21:24] <Ubulette> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/mozilla-devscripts/mozilla-devscripts
[21:25] <Ubulette> we just have one branch so it's okay like that
[21:25] <asac> i am fine with that ... but atm we don't even have nont .<something> branches for other things
[21:25] <asac> thats ok
[21:26] <asac> maybe we should once again rename the branches for all the packages :-D
[21:26] <asac> remove .dev ... rename .head -> .dev
[21:26] <asac> :)
[21:26] <asac> and releast branches get .gutsy  and so on
[21:26] <Ubulette> maybe another day later this week
[21:27] <asac> but rather push that forward till hardy+1 :)
[21:27] <Ubulette> or during UDS ;)
[21:27] <asac> yeah ;)
[21:27] <asac> branch clean up session :)
[21:34] <Ubulette> I have to update my buildbot now.
[21:34] <asac>  update to what?
[21:34] <asac> woody?
[21:34] <Ubulette> ? no
[21:34] <Ubulette> it uses mozclient
[21:35] <asac> just kidding
[21:35] <asac> ah ... cool
[21:36] <Ubulette> you were supposed to comment on my ff3 sdk bug last week
[21:39] <asac> thanks for the reminder. completely dropped off of my radar
[21:52] <Ubulette> we should start a "package 5 extensions a day"
[21:53] <asac> yeah :)
[21:53] <asac> the problem is the list of viable extensions though
[21:54] <asac> so "investigate 5 extensions a day" would be extremely helpful though
[21:55] <asac> if we#d had a long list of extensions that are ready (license + compatible) we could initiate an "extension packaging marathon" :)
[22:04] <Ubulette> blog about it on planet
[22:07] <asac> ur right
[22:15] <RainCT> asac: great, adblock-plus works now (after switching to xpi.mk) :D
[22:16] <RainCT> asac: what did you say, does it need a FFe?
[22:24] <asac> RainCT: no it doesn't just open a bug and refer in it to the general feature freeze exception for ffox extensions
[22:25] <asac> subscribe mozillateam next
[22:25] <asac> and once Ubulette or me confirmed you can upload :-D
[22:25] <asac> (we agreed to ack those to make universe-release team happy)
[22:25] <RainCT> asac: ok. upload to revu or link the branch?
[22:26] <asac> RainCT: you have upload rights?
[22:26] <RainCT> yes
[22:26] <asac> just link the branc
[22:26] <asac> h
[22:26] <RainCT> allright
[22:26] <asac> cool
[22:27] <asac> Ubulette: you get mozillateam subscribed bug mail?
[22:27] <RainCT> ubotu, bug #191954
[22:27] <asac> (e.g. thats != mozilla-bugs)
[22:27] <RainCT> ubotu: you're slow :/
[22:27] <asac> has been dead for me today
[22:27] <RainCT> oh
[22:28] <Ubulette> bug 191954
[22:28] <asac> ubotu: you there?
[22:28] <asac> most likely a dead-lock :)
[22:28] <RainCT> seems like he is ill... yesterday we had an 1 hour lag in #ubuntu-youth lol
[22:28] <RainCT> (1 hour, really :))
[22:32] <RainCT> asac: ok, subscribed
[22:33] <RainCT> asac: btw, what do you want to do with mozilla-firefox-adblock? remove it and add a dummy package to adblock-plus or convert mozilla-firefox-adblock itself into a dummy package, or just remove it?
[22:36] <Ubulette> a dummy is needed for the transition
[22:38] <asac> yes
[22:39] <RainCT> yes, but were? in adblock-plus, or?
[22:39] <asac> yes
[22:40] <asac> you add dummy packages depending on mozilla-firefox-adblock in there
[22:40] <asac> so you get an upgrade
[22:40] <asac> and you add conflicts/replaces to adblock main package
[22:40] <asac> (verseioned conflicts/replaces)
[22:41] <RainCT> okay. a last question, should I add the dummy package now or once mozilla-firefox-adblock has been removed?
[22:41] <asac> right from the beginning
[22:41] <asac> removal happens after migration
[22:42] <asac> oh ... take care that the version is higher than the on of mere -adblock
[22:42] <asac> maybe you need to add an  epoch for that
[22:42] <RainCT> why?
[22:42] <asac> otherwise -adblock users will not be auto transitioned
[22:42] <RainCT> ahhh right
[22:42] <asac> (as the dummy package version would be lower ... so it couldn't pull in the new package as a dependency)
[22:43] <RainCT> that's evil :)
[22:43] <RainCT> ah no, it's ok :)
[22:43] <RainCT> 0.7.5.3-0ubuntu1 (new) VS 0.5.3.043-4ubuntu1 (old)
[22:44] <Ubulette> asac, "You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla Team, which is a direct subscriber." so i guess it's ok
[22:47] <asac> yes great
[22:47] <asac> RainCT: yes ... you have luck
[22:50] <Ubulette> and you should stop the sync/merge from debian
[22:51] <Ubulette> if any
[22:52] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 191954 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] Adblock Plus" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191954
[22:52] <ubotu> Sorry, I don't know anything about you're slow :/ - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi
[22:52] <ubotu> Sorry, I don't know anything about you there? - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi
[22:52] <Ubulette> :)
[23:04] <Ubulette> maybe i should drop my nick and use fta instead
[23:08] <Ubulette> RainCT: so you will upload it to debian too ?
[23:13] <RainCT> Ubulette: is mozilla-devscripts in Debian?
[23:13] <Ubulette> no
[23:13] <RainCT> then not
[23:13] <Ubulette> and our paths for mozilla products are different too
[23:14] <Ubulette> then you should target hardy in debian/control
[23:14] <RainCT> true.. :)
[23:15] <Ubulette> and drop iceape-browser
[23:15] <RainCT> and iceweasel too?
[23:15] <Ubulette> and iceweasel too
[23:15] <Ubulette> yep
[23:15] <RainCT> ok
[23:17]  * RainCT had added those as there are some people which use Ubuntu but install the mozilla packages from Debian.. but now that he thinks about it, those aren't probably many :P
[23:17] <Ubulette> :)
[23:17] <Ubulette> you can rename the branch too then
[23:17] <Ubulette> otherwise, it looks ok to me
[23:18] <Ubulette> I like rules files so simple :)
[23:18]  * RainCT too :D
[23:19] <Ubulette> that was the whole purpose of mozilla-devscripts
[23:30] <RainCT> Ubulette: if you leave an ack on the report I'll upload it tomorrow :)
[23:31] <asac> well .. keeping iceweasel + iceape is sane
[23:31] <asac> we should contribute it to debian at somepoint
[23:31] <asac> but i don't care hard
[23:32] <Ubulette> it's still targeting unstable, i was waiting for at least this commit before giving an ack
[23:32] <asac> yes
[23:33] <RainCT> Ubulette: yes, my connection is slow :/
[23:33] <RainCT> it's up now
[23:33] <asac> RainCT: you can use dch -r to prepare changelog for release
[23:33] <asac> and please use 0ubuntu1 ... in case you didn't yet
[23:33] <RainCT> I did :)
[23:33] <asac> still unstable?
[23:33] <asac> strange
[23:34] <asac> unless you are on debian of course :)
[23:34] <RainCT> rev 12?
[23:34] <Ubulette> good here
[23:34] <RainCT> should be:   adblock-plus (0.7.5.3-0ubuntu1) hardy; urgency=low
[23:34] <asac> yes
[23:35] <Ubulette> there's a storm here
[23:37] <asac> we had enough storms for this year already
[23:45] <RainCT> good night :)
[23:45] <Ubulette> 'night