[00:05] <fta> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DWDM for an intro, when you're done with your study ;)
[00:07] <asac> fta: yeah thats it
[00:08] <fta> http://www.snotr.com/video/76
[00:08] <asac> optical cross connects ... yay
[00:08] <asac> are there any "pure" optical solutions?
[00:08] <fta> not in IP
[00:09] <fta> routing is still difficult
[00:09] <asac> yeah ... for static routings i guess
[00:10] <asac> well, but big lines can have quite static routings ... at least for a few hops :)
[00:11] <fta> transmission is possible in full optics (DWDM), but IP inside (L3) still needs optic-electric-optic conversions
[00:12] <fta> wave lengths commutation vs packets routing
[00:12] <asac> yeah
[00:12] <asac> thats what i mean :)
[00:12]  * asac feels unqualified to do any serious discussion on this topic
[00:15] <fta> and i feel tired after so much sports yesterday and today
[00:15] <asac> fta: bike?
[00:16] <fta> yes
[00:16] <fta> with +27°C
[00:17] <asac> fta: i envy you
[00:17] <asac> weather could be better here for two weeks already
[00:18] <fta> btw, i'll be traveling for the 1st half of july
[00:19] <asac> holiday?
[00:19] <fta> no
[00:19] <fta> well, half
[00:26] <asac> fta: ok ... so starting next week?
[00:26] <fta> yep
[00:28] <asac> fta: do you look into install.rdf to get the addons version in check-extensions script?
[00:29] <fta> yes, but there are exceptions :(
[00:29] <asac> fta: for non-amo extensions?
[00:30] <fta> useragentswitcher => config.properties
[00:30] <asac> fta: ok. so to properly check the version we need to spin the package :/
[00:30] <asac> fta: but well
[00:30] <fta> webdeveloper => config.properties + config_common.properties  + config_seamonkey.properties + ...
[00:30] <asac> we can make that pluggable
[00:31] <asac> e.g. custom_extensions_version_command :)
[00:31] <asac> fta: is webdeveloper packaged by unpacking amo .xpi?
[00:31] <fta> donno
[00:32] <asac> thats painful
[00:32] <fta> indeed
[00:33] <asac> fta: but webdeveloper is not synched from AMO apperantly
[00:33] <asac> so falls in the "not-yet-covered" upstream source category
[00:38] <fta> it's not really difficult
[00:48] <fta> lol  http://home.kairo.at/blog/2008-06/soccer_impact_on_internet_usage
[00:54] <asac> yeah cool ;)
[01:37] <Jazzva> fta, read about wdm. Interesting :).
[01:37] <Jazzva> But no, we don't mention optical telecom at all...
[01:37] <Jazzva> Thanks for the link :)
[05:53] <jdhore> howdy
[05:54] <jdhore> I'm noticing a pretty big issue in Firefox-3.0 3.0+nobinonly-0ubuntu2
[05:54] <jdhore> Simply, jemalloc seems broken
[12:41] <asac> good ... kaze built
[13:48] <LimCore> is this a known bug?  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/242322
[14:00] <asac> LimCore: please search bugzilla.mozilla.org
[14:01] <asac> LimCore: ffox 3 still has a some rendering issues, so there might be a bug open there
[14:01] <asac> LimCore: go to advanced search page and select the layout component
[14:01] <asac> or gfx
[14:01] <asac> to get a search on a valid bug base :)
[14:07] <LimCore> ok I will look in time then
[14:10] <asac> cool. thanks
[16:33] <Jazzva> Hey, asac... About extension merges. Since we're not doing it with debian, do we wanna keep lower version (for example debian has 0.14-1, and we use 0.14-0ubuntu1), or not?
[16:52] <asac> ha ... i am not allowed to contact gmail.com anymore because i am in germany
[16:53] <asac> really really stupid
[16:53] <asac> Jazzva: given that we override their changes we should use higher version imo
[16:54] <Jazzva> ok... just to correct then. I thought that maybe we could use lower version, and then indicate in merges that we mostly diverged from them for now, but that wouldn't be easier :)
[16:55] <Jazzva> Then I should also include debian's changelog entry
[16:58] <asac> yes, use higher version so it disappears from the MoM list
[16:58] <Jazzva> ok
[17:01] <Jazzva> yay. two more merges that I'm doing for sure :). Though, both are extensions :)
[17:53] <Yannig> Hi asac :-)
[17:53] <Yannig> (and hello everybody)
[18:08] <asac> hi Yannig
[18:08] <Yannig> I found a problem with Firefox po :-)
[18:08] <Yannig> It cannot be re-imported into Launchpad :p
[18:11] <Yannig> On 2008-06-15 14:49+0000 (7 days 55 minutes ago), you uploaded a file
[18:11] <Yannig> with Occitan (post 1500) (oc) translations for firefox in Ubuntu Hardy
[18:11] <Yannig> package "firefox-3.0" to Launchpad.
[18:11] <Yannig> We were unable to import the file because of errors in its format:
[18:11] <Yannig> PO file: duplicate msgid ending on line 78
[18:21] <jdhore> is anyone here?
[18:21] <gnomefreak> Jazzva: thanks for minutes they look good
[18:21] <gnomefreak> jdhore: whats up?
[18:22] <jdhore> gnomefreak, lemme copy what i said way earlier...1 sec
 howdy
 I'm noticing a pretty big issue in Firefox-3.0 3.0+nobinonly-0ubuntu2
 Simply, jemalloc seems broken
[18:22] <Jazzva> gnomefreak, no problem :)
[18:22] <gnomefreak> asac: do you have anything on UWN by chance?
[18:22] <gnomefreak> jdhore: jemalloc?
[18:22] <gnomefreak> care to elaborate?
[18:23] <jdhore> gnomefreak, the new firefox3 memory allocator that makes Firefox suck a lot less
[18:23] <gnomefreak> jdhore: let me try this. what is the problem
[18:24] <jdhore> Basically, after only running Firefox for a short time, it's getting up to ~500MB of RAM in use whereas i NEVER had the nightly binaries from Mozilla hit over ~250MB RAM in use
[18:24] <rzr> hi,
[18:24] <gnomefreak> jdhore: does this also happen in safe mode?
[18:24] <jdhore> gnomefreak, yes
[18:24] <rzr> I just booted an outdated hardy
[18:25] <rzr> and FF3 is pretty unstable
[18:25] <rzr> Let's see if reboot can help
[18:25] <gnomefreak> jdhore: does this include flash and java pages as well as text pages?
[18:25] <jdhore> gnomefreak, some flash, but not much and no java (I don't even have JRE installed)
[18:26] <jdhore> and only 3 extensions
[18:26] <jdhore> (all of which are FF3 compatible, i did no overrides)
[18:27] <gnomefreak> jdhore: camplatible or not doesnt mean they work but sinc eyou claim it happens in safe mode it doesnt matter on extensions at all.
[18:27] <jdhore> true
[18:27] <jdhore> I remembered that just after i mentioned that
[18:27] <gnomefreak> jdhore: please file a bug using Help > Report a Problem and follow the instructions on filing a bug than give me bug link please
[18:28]  * gnomefreak reading about any upstream issues with 1.9 atm
[18:28] <jdhore> gnomefreak, It's not there...or it's greyed out
[18:28] <gnomefreak> jdhore: its greyed out?
[18:29] <gnomefreak> asac: !!! where are you?
[18:29] <gnomefreak> jdhore: its not greyed out here
[18:29] <jdhore> kinda hard to tell (grey text on black background = not easy to read)
[18:29] <gnomefreak> jdhore: is this Ubuntu's version of firefox?
[18:29] <jdhore> Yes
[18:29] <jdhore> but i should mention that i'm on Debian Testing, not Ubuntu
[18:30] <gnomefreak> jdhore: that would do it
[18:30] <jdhore> lemme guess
[18:30] <gnomefreak> jdhore: we dont recommend nor do we advocate using binaries from Ubuntu on Debian nor vice versa
[18:31] <gnomefreak> jdhore: you will encounter problems some small some bigger than you will ever see again
[18:31] <jdhore> you guys put libjemalloc (or whatever it uses) in the system so it depended on a shared library which Debian doesn't have?
[18:31] <gnomefreak> jdhore: suggestion compile it from source use ubuntus source and compile for debian
[18:31] <jdhore> gnomefreak, i didn't use binaries, i built it from source in the Debian-approved way
[18:31] <jdhore> (used the ubuntu sources and cowbuilder)
[18:32] <gnomefreak> jdhore: that is very possible is it in the control file for Ubuntu firefox
[18:32] <jdhore> i didn't notice it in the control file
[18:32] <gnomefreak> jdhore: see if its missing from iceweasel source
[18:32] <jdhore> I noticed a few patches in debian/patches relating to jemalloc, but i didn't want to remove them
[18:32] <gnomefreak> jdhore: what version of xulrunner are you using?
[18:33] <jdhore> 1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu2
[18:33] <gnomefreak> jdhore: they are needed for our build dont remove them
[18:33] <gnomefreak> jdhore: debians? or built from our source?
[18:33] <jdhore> yours
[18:33] <jdhore> (built from source)
[18:34] <gnomefreak> jdhore: see if iceweasel has same issue but if i had to guess there is gona be alot more depends that you will need
[18:34] <gnomefreak> i dont have  adebian chroot handy atm
[18:35] <jdhore> iceweasel doesn't have the same issue, they explicitly compile jemalloc out
[18:35] <jdhore> - Use MOZILLA_NO_JEMALLOC instead of LD_PRELOAD to disable jemalloc.
[18:35] <gnomefreak> jdhore: than that sounds like a depend issue
[18:35] <gnomefreak> jdhore: your missing a few deps
[18:36] <jdhore> gnomefreak, can you give me a full list? cuz...I assume the debian/control file is missing a few
[18:36] <gnomefreak> firefox-3.0 Depends: fontconfig Depends: psmisc Depends: debianutils Depends: xulrunner-1.9 Depends: libatk1.0-0 Depends: libc6 Depends: libcairo2 Depends: libfontconfig1 Depends: libfreetype6 Depends: libgcc1 Depends: libglib2.0-0 Depends: libgtk2.0-0 Depends: libnspr4-0d Depends: libpango1.0-0 Depends: libstdc++6 Depends: zlib1g
[18:36] <laptopnenolod> why does ubuntu's firefox-3 disable jemalloc?
[18:36] <gnomefreak> jdhore: they do not include xulrunner deps
[18:36] <gnomefreak> and most likely that is where the issue is
[18:37] <gnomefreak> laptopnenolod: we dont
[18:37] <gnomefreak> laptopnenolod: we built with it and its built in xulrunner not ff
[18:37] <jdhore> laptopnenolod, i'm talking to them right now about that
[18:37] <laptopnenolod> hmm
[18:37] <jdhore> laptopnenolod, it seems we're missing some dependencies which was the big list he pasted when you first joined
[18:37] <gnomefreak> laptopnenolod: debian builds without it
[18:38] <laptopnenolod> jdhore, no, we have all of the deps i think
[18:38] <gnomefreak> xulrunner-1.9 Depends: libatk1.0-0 Depends: libc6 Depends: libcairo2 Depends: libdbus-1-3 Depends: libdbus-glib-1-2 Depends: libfontconfig1 Depends: libfreetype6 Depends: libgcc1 Depends: libglib2.0-0 Depends: libgtk2.0-0 Depends: libhunspell-1.2-0 Depends: libidl0 Depends: libnspr4-0d Depends: libnss3-1d Depends: libpango1.0-0 Depends: libsqlite3-0 Depends: libstartup-notification0 Depends: libstdc++6
[18:38] <gnomefreak>  Depnds: lib0x11-6 Depends: libxft2 Depends: libxrender1 Depends: libxt6 Depends: python2.5 Depends: zlib1g Conflicts: <j2re1.4> Breaks: devhelp Breaks: epiphany-gecko Breaks: midbrowser Breaks: yelp
[18:38] <gnomefreak> jdhore: also neeed the build deps and they are in the debian/control for both packages to see what you are missing
[18:39] <jdhore> gnomefreak, right, we built agains the debian/control files, so if those deps are in it, we built with them
[18:39] <gnomefreak> fta: i dont have a ff3 source handy ar eyou around?
[18:39] <gnomefreak> jdhore: did you leave any out?
[18:40] <laptopnenolod> gnomefreak, we imported the mozilla specific deps from ubuntu. so we have them
[18:40] <gnomefreak> ones that maybe debiuan doesnt use or doesnt have right version of?
[18:40] <jdhore> gnomefreak, the way cowbuilder (what i used to build) works is that it won't build the package unless all deps in debian/control are met
[18:40] <laptopnenolod> gnomefreak, our package set derivates majorly from debian's
[18:40] <jdhore> (Debian Testing's)
[18:41] <gnomefreak> jdhore: what about flags?
[18:41] <laptopnenolod> yes, that too
[18:41] <gnomefreak> will it skip build flags?
[18:41] <gnomefreak> if cant be met?
[18:41] <laptopnenolod> no
[18:42] <gnomefreak> are you running it in cowbuilder?
[18:42]  * gnomefreak wonders if its like pbuilder only sets everything up in basic temp chroot
[18:43] <jdhore> cowbuilder is almost exactly like pbuilder
[18:43] <jdhore> (except you can chroot into the build environment)
[18:44] <gnomefreak> if you built it with everything i dont se ehow its a Ubuntu issue since ours works fine built and ran on Ubuntu, im trying to cross out everything but running environment since i cant do that atm
[18:44] <gnomefreak> jdhore: can you run it in cowbuilder?
[18:45] <jdhore> no
[18:45] <jdhore> I have no X in cowbuilder
[18:45] <gnomefreak> if you can chroot into it you should be able to run it. mind you do it witha  new profile
[18:45] <jdhore> nor do i really want to
[18:46] <gnomefreak> yes i know the feeling but since you need to test it in the build enviornment to see what the issue is i dont see another choice that will work. maybe build a Ubuntu chroot and test it in there. than remove it once test is done but again new profile
[18:47] <jdhore> The build environment is identical to the running environment
[18:47] <gnomefreak> jdhore: as of right now our build works without xulrunner issues from what i can tell ( on a basic system without extensions and such
[18:47] <gnomefreak> jdhore: i dont think so
[18:47] <gnomefreak> jdhore: build-environment needs to have Ubuntu packages not just one or 2.
[18:47] <jdhore> well...fewer packages in the build environment, but other than that, yes, 100% identical packages and package versions
[18:48] <jdhore> oh
[18:48] <jdhore> crap
[18:48] <gnomefreak> if you dont have the packages needed to build on Ubuntu it wont build on Ubuntu
[18:48] <jdhore> we have the packages
[18:49] <gnomefreak> if i tried to build a hardy package on gutsy but used gutsy packages it will still fail to run on hardy since it wasnt built on hardy
[18:49] <jdhore> all of them with the same names, and probably similar versions, they just have none of the Ubuntu packages
[18:49] <jdhore> *patches
[18:50] <gnomefreak> jdhore: example if you built on ubuntu's nss than most likely it wont run on debians. you need to try taking debian packages and renaming them and change build-options to see if it will build and run
[18:50] <jdhore> IT RUNS
[18:50] <jdhore> IT BUILDS
[18:50] <jdhore> This is not the issue
[18:51] <jdhore> The issue is that jemalloc doesn't bloody work
[18:51] <gnomefreak> jdhore: BUT IT FAILS TO WORK PROPERLY
[18:51] <gnomefreak> hint do you think Mike stopped that just in package?
[18:51] <gnomefreak> i would assume theres a lib or 4 that is needed for that
[18:51] <jdhore> I'd say more like you guys bloody screwed something up
[18:51] <gnomefreak> does debian have any of them at all
[18:52] <gnomefreak> jdhore: but it wortks here
[18:52] <gnomefreak> jdhore: so we couldnt have we left upstream build-options as is you change them
[18:52] <jdhore> Why the hell diedn't you guys just leave jemalloc working stock from Mozilla and be bloody happy
[18:52] <jdhore> ?
[18:52] <gnomefreak> we didint disable it
[18:52] <gnomefreak> it works fine
[18:52] <jdhore> you made it shared it looks like
[18:53] <gnomefreak> debian build disables it
[18:53] <gnomefreak> we didnt change upstream anything for that.
[18:53] <gnomefreak> jdhore: take a look at our patches and tell me what one changes it in any way
[18:53] <jdhore> Drop LDFLAGS workaround now that jemalloc is no longer a static lib.
[18:53] <jdhore>     We still ship jemalloc as a shared lib
[18:53] <jdhore> xulrunner-1.9 (1.9~rc1+nobinonly-0ubuntu1)
[18:54] <gnomefreak> jdhore: did you happen to get final
[18:54] <gnomefreak> and yes i can see him doing that
[18:54] <gnomefreak> jdhore: did upstream apply the patch ?
[18:54] <jdhore> yes, i did get final, and i looked though the changelog from there till final and i saw no patches or entries that reverted that patch
[18:55] <jdhore> How the hell do i know?
[18:55]  * gnomefreak really getting tired of this static vs shared upstream topics
[18:55] <jdhore> It is static in Firefox upstream, i know this for a fact
[18:55] <gnomefreak> jdhore: grab final build from us and look to see if patch is still there or to use old patcha nd see if the upstream file has been changed to match
[18:56] <jdhore> it is
[18:56] <gnomefreak> jdhore: thats not what i meant
[18:56] <gnomefreak> jdhore: this isnt the first time this bug has been brought up
[18:56] <gnomefreak> static vs shared
[18:56] <jdhore> IT HAS NOT BEEN REVERTED IN THE CHANGELOG. THERE IS NOTHING NEWER THAN THAT EVEN REFERRING TO JEMALLOC.
[18:56] <gnomefreak> its an upstream bug
[18:56] <jdhore> ah
[18:56] <gnomefreak> jdhore: changelog doesnt tell you everything BTW
[18:57] <gnomefreak> its kind of like a set of notess
[18:57] <gnomefreak> notes
[18:57] <jdhore> true, but there are still patches in the debian/patches directory in final that mention you guys doing shit with jemalloc
[18:58] <gnomefreak> jdhore: asac and fta are more caught up on the static/shared issues, since noone likes that we build shared it has been in upstream bugs but numbers escape me its been a while and i was concerned only in aspect of Tbird-3
[18:59] <jdhore> right
[18:59] <jdhore> so now it becomes a huge pain in the ass cuz now we have to build with Mozilla source...yay...
[19:00] <gnomefreak> jdhore: its because we build shared and they want us to build static as far as i know. i have been busy with "real life" to keep track of the builds off hand. this was a moot subject when i left and still shouldnt effact our build since noone in Ubuntu sees it
[19:00] <gnomefreak> jdhore: you should do that anyway
[19:00] <gnomefreak> jdhore: that way you dont add ubuntu/debian/RH bugs in your package
[19:00] <jdhore> right, i guarantee that's where the problem is since mozilla builds static and their nightly binaries worked fine
[19:00] <gnomefreak> we dont build from debian ;)
[19:01] <jdhore> true, but it's a huge pain for packages as...large/expansive as Firefox and XULRunner
[19:01] <gnomefreak> jdhore: try building them every week for months
[19:01] <gnomefreak> it becomes natural
[19:01] <jdhore> heh...true :P
[19:02]  * gnomefreak toatally forgot about shared/static :(
[19:04] <gnomefreak> but i still cant say its that that is causing the main issue since our build doesnt show any leakage signs that i have heard about so you may stioll have the issue after changing build flags.
[19:05] <armin76> hrm
[19:05] <gnomefreak> but our build is built to run on ubuntu nothing else :)
[19:05] <armin76> asac: looks like ff3 segfaults on ppc
[19:05] <armin76> asac: if built with -O2
[19:06] <armin76> or -Os
[19:08] <gnomefreak> armin76: hes not here right now if you see him please smack him for me ;)
[19:09]  * armin76 smacks gnomefreak for not fixing it
[19:09] <gnomefreak> :)
[19:09] <gnomefreak> -02 should be fine, so it leads me to think its the lack of support for PPC
[19:09] <gnomefreak> ever since it moved to ports i dont think we have one to test on anymore
[19:10] <gnomefreak> IIRC asac was only one with a PPC for the longest time
[19:15] <asac> jdhore: so whats your issue about jemalloc?
[19:16] <jdhore> asac, according to a friend, building it shared is the stupidest thing in the world
[19:16] <jdhore> if you make a library which overrides a function in glibc(), the library will be ignored
[19:16] <jdhore> the only way to override functions in glibc is by static linking
[19:17] <jdhore> Basically, if you try to use shared linking, it will ignore jemalloc, it will only not if you use static linking
[19:17] <gnomefreak> something bothers me why did we add that to changelog if mozilla didnt comply with what was said :(
[19:18] <gnomefreak> we dont build with --disable-* nor --enable-* with static or shared so it would build as Mozilla had wanted from waht i can tell
[19:18] <asac> jdhore: doesnt it depend on the load orderß
[19:19] <gnomefreak> orderß what is that last char?
[19:19] <asac> ?
[19:19] <jdhore> gnomefreak, there were manual defines (or something) in one of the debian/patches
[19:19] <asac> jdhore: non of these patches in debian/patches are applied. look in debian/patches/series
[19:19] <jdhore> asac, no, not if you're overriding the default malloc
[19:19] <gnomefreak> jdhore: that would have been workaround no?
[19:20] <jdhore> asac, nope, only 3 weren't applied
[19:20] <asac> jdhore: i am pretty sure you can use LD_PRELOAD ... so why wouldnt it depend on the load order?
[19:20] <jdhore> and i can guarantee at least one of them has nothing to do with jemalloc
[19:20] <asac> jdhore: not sure what you are talking about
[19:21] <jdhore> asac, because that's for normal libraries, not libraries overriding glibc's native calls
[19:21] <asac> jdhore: name the patches of concern and i can tell you more
[19:21] <jdhore> 1 sec
[19:22] <jdhore> drop_bz418016 in xulrunner looks like the patch of concern
[19:22] <asac> jdhore: that one is not applied
[19:22] <gnomefreak> LMAO i show more in series than i do in patches
[19:24] <asac> jdhore: actually i dont understand how malloc should be technical different to other library functions ... that said, I think its still used.
[19:24] <asac> if its not i dont care much either :)
[19:24] <asac> as then it doesnt hurt and we are just tracking upstream behaviour here
[19:28] <asac> jdhore: ok works here :)
[19:28] <jdhore> hmm? What does?
[19:28] <asac> jdhore: http://paste.ubuntu.com/22397/
[19:28] <asac> overloading malloc :)
[19:28] <asac> in a shared lib
[19:29] <asac> but the paste above in a file "test.c"
[19:29] <asac> gcc -fPIC -shared -o libtest.so test.c
[19:29] <asac> then make a main.c with:
[19:29] <asac> http://paste.ubuntu.com/22399/
[19:30] <asac> and build gcc -ltest -L. -Wl,-rpath=$PWD/ main.c
[19:30] <asac> then run
[19:30] <asac> ./a.out
[19:30] <asac> :)
[19:32] <gnomefreak> can we tryt o keep patches under 10,000 lines :(
[19:33] <asac> gnomefreak: the hunspell patch is just so big because it moves files :)
[19:33] <gnomefreak> this is the old gconf patch
[19:33] <gnomefreak> its huge
[19:33] <asac> gnomefreak: right
[19:33] <asac> gnomefreak: its in mobile build
[19:33] <gnomefreak> this looks liek the patch that we used as workaround
[19:33] <gnomefreak> oh
[19:33] <asac> i have to move the gconf part to some shared component and punch that into a separate package
[19:34] <gnomefreak> ok
[19:35] <asac> jdhore: anyway ... this all isnt really relevant as jemalloc isnt used anymore in final afaict :)
[19:35] <jdhore> uhh
[19:35] <jdhore> Yes it is
[19:36] <asac> jdhore: nope
[19:36] <asac> $ strace -f -eopen 2>&1 firefox | grep jemalloc
[19:36] <asac> ... see: deadly silence
[19:36] <asac> not loaded
[19:36] <jdhore> right
[19:36] <jdhore> and there's where the problem is
[19:36] <asac> jdhore: thats upstream
[19:36] <asac> jdhore: export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/libjemalloc.so
[19:36] <jdhore> because according to the Mozilla devs, it is still used in FF3 final
[19:36] <asac> then run
[19:36] <asac>  strace -f -eopen 2>&1 firefox | grep jemalloc
[19:36] <asac> open("/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/libjemalloc.so", O_RDONLY) = 3
[19:36] <asac> open("/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/libjemalloc.so", O_RDONLY) = 3
[19:37] <asac> jdhore: no its not
[19:37] <gnomefreak> beta4 was last post i can see by devels on jemalloc
[19:37] <asac> i saw that patch landing before release that disabled it with the hint "dont use by default and let distros whatever they want"
[19:37] <asac> chances that i am wrong exist, but I'd say its < 10%
[19:37] <jdhore> asac, I followed the svn commits up to the day before final
[19:38] <asac> jdhore: mozilla isnt in svn :)
[19:38] <jdhore> and i never saw a ptch that disabled jemalloc by default
[19:38] <jdhore> asac, i know, before they switched over to hg
[19:38] <asac> jdhore: before that it was in cvs ;)
[19:39] <jdhore> hmm...thought it was svn...Well...no matter, i followed bonzai which shows all cvs commits
[19:42] <jdhore> asac, you lose, sir
[19:42] <jdhore> 18:36:06  < jdhore> Is jemalloc still used on Linux on FF3 final?
[19:42] <jdhore> 18:42:16  < dmose> jdhore: yes
[19:43] <gnomefreak> Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle collector, a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of leaks have been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.
[19:43] <gnomefreak> but fails to say what
[19:45] <gnomefreak> i got it from http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/releasenotes/
[19:45] <jdhore> gnomefreak, this was coming from dmose who is one of the lead FF3 Linux people
[19:45] <gnomefreak> jdhore: i wasnt looking at this channel i was reading
[19:45] <jdhore> gnomefreak, i know, it's not very technical in the release notes, but i'm sure i would've been corrected when i said jemalloc in firefox3's dev channel
[19:46] <gnomefreak> than why did mike decide default was not best?
[19:46] <jdhore> who's mike?
[19:46] <gnomefreak> debians Maintainer
[19:47] <asac> jdhore:
[19:47] <asac> $ mv /home/asac/.mozilla /home/asac/.mozilla.bak
[19:47] <asac> asac@hector:/tmp/qw/firefox$ pwd
[19:47] <asac> /tmp/qw/firefox
[19:47] <asac> asac@hector:/tmp/qw/firefox$ ls libjemalloc.so
[19:47] <asac> libjemalloc.so
[19:47] <asac> asac@hector:/tmp/qw/firefox$ strace -f -eopen firefox 2>&1 | grep jemalloc
[19:47] <asac> nothing
[19:47] <gnomefreak> sure there are more than just him but as i recall he is head Mozilla maintianer for debian
[19:47] <asac> so they definitly ship shared and dont use it
[19:47] <jdhore> yes
[19:47] <asac> jdhore: and they dont use static either :)
[19:47] <jdhore> because you bloody disabled it or something
[19:47] <asac> jdhore: thats upstream build :)
[19:47] <asac> jdhore: look ad the pwd in my paste
[19:47] <asac> its just upstream firefox ... nothing else
[19:48] <asac> er
[19:49] <asac> jdhore: ok i stand corrected. in any case. its optional and we dont change any configure flag for that
[19:50] <jdhore> again, not according to dmose who is a ff3 dev
[19:50] <asac> i can surely look into this. but imo it doesnt really matter performance wise
[19:50] <asac> i know him :)
[19:50] <jdhore> Actually, it quite does
[19:50] <jdhore> It dropped my RAM usage of firefox in half the day they enabled it
[19:50] <jdhore> and no, i'm not being sarcastic
[19:51] <gnomefreak> asac: did you grab 3.1?
[19:51] <asac> jdhore: try what i said
[19:51] <jdhore> ?
[19:51] <asac> jdhore: export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9/libjemalloc.so
[19:51] <asac> then firefox
[19:52] <asac> (with our build)
[19:52] <asac> ill use it a bit for now
[19:52] <asac> jdhore: in any case: its shared, not static
[19:52] <gnomefreak> Jazzva: did you find out about LP blogging?
[19:52] <asac> and it works ... if it works  for upstream ;)
[19:53] <Jazzva> gnomefreak, it doesn't exist. I filed a wishlist bugreport
[19:53] <gnomefreak> Jazzva: ok thanks i was gonna ask if you didnt get around to it
[19:53]  * gnomefreak scared to touch email
[19:53] <Jazzva> gnomefreak, it's ok :). Do you need a bug report num?
[19:54] <gnomefreak> Jazzva: yeah please i would like to follow it
[19:55] <gnomefreak> damn i forgot we set -t :(
[19:55] <Jazzva> gnomefreak, bug 242211
[19:55] <gnomefreak> Jazzva: thank you again ;)
[19:55] <Jazzva> np :)
[19:56] <gnomefreak> 629 in one box
[19:58] <armin76> jemalloc fails to compile with glibc-2.3 fyi
[19:59] <gnomefreak> ha i found a bug on it :)
[20:00] <gnomefreak> armin76: just got that email
[20:00] <gnomefreak> asac: jdhore http://pastebin.mozilla.org/466509
[20:01] <asac> gnomefreak: whats that?
[20:02] <gnomefreak> thats someone building it failing on glib atleast hope it isnt
[20:02] <armin76> jemalloc doesn't support glibc-2.3
[20:03] <gnomefreak> ah
[20:03] <asac> gnomefreak: try http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/miscpatches/jemalloc_in_xul.patch
[20:03] <asac> in xulrunner-1.9 package
[20:03] <gnomefreak> ok i have to do email first
[20:03] <asac> just add it to debian/patches/ and debian/patches/series
[20:04] <asac> gnomefreak: ok. ill spin here on my own then :)
[20:04] <armin76> asac: it segfaults on ppc! :P
[20:04] <asac> armin76: why?
[20:05] <armin76> http://bugs.gentoo.org/228957
[20:06] <asac> armin76: thats a bogus backtrace :)
[20:06] <asac> no symbols nothing
[20:06] <armin76> asac: see latest comment :P
[20:08] <asac> most likely compiler flags by mad-gentoo user :)
[20:08] <armin76> lol
[20:08] <asac> armin76: can you reproduce with our builds?
[20:09]  * asac hits the push-back button
[20:09] <armin76> okay, i'll build an ubuntu chroot, if it fails, you buy me a ppc! :P
[20:09] <asac> haha
[20:09] <armin76> i'm still updating my chroot, 69 of 103 packages
[20:09] <asac> brave
[20:10] <gnomefreak> anyone have a man page for firefox-3??
[20:10] <armin76> well, its been 6 months or more
[20:10] <asac> armin76: not much then ;)
[20:10] <asac> gnomefreak: why?
[20:10] <gnomefreak> because ther eis a bug on us not having one
[20:11] <gnomefreak> bug 115112
[20:11] <armin76> Linux luna 2.6.14-hardened #1 Tue Nov 15 21:55:38 UTC 2005 ppc 7447/7457, altivec supported CHRP Pegasos2 GNU/Linux
[20:12] <asac> "firefox is a command you can use to start firefox manually. None of the command line options provided by that command are not ment for public consumption and should be treated as if they were non-existing
[20:13] <asac> err s/non ment/ment/
[20:13] <asac> err^2 s/not ment/ment/
[20:14] <asac> gnomefreak: not sure what content would fit into such a manpage
[20:14] <gnomefreak> not sure what the person is even looking for TBH
[20:15] <gnomefreak> maybe firefox -safe-mode or firefox -P?
[20:15] <gnomefreak> otherwise i couldnt tell you that is the first time ive seen that bug
[20:16] <asac> gnomefreak: well. if we get a contribution we can add that manpage
[20:19] <asac> jdhore: ok, i identified the issue
[20:19] <armin76> firefox --help :P
[20:19] <jdhore> asac, awesome
[20:19] <jdhore> what is it?
[20:20] <gnomefreak> bug 241722
[20:20] <asac> jdhore: firefox build --with-lib-xul doesnt link against libjemalloc ... its not a build option that we are missing, but a bug in build system
[20:20] <jdhore> asac: you
[20:20] <asac> jdhore: i am currently trying to build xulrunner with the patch above
[20:20] <jdhore>  /kickban jdhore
[20:20] <jdhore> :P
[20:20] <jdhore> ah
[20:20] <jdhore> cool
[20:20] <asac> http://people.ubuntu.com/~asac/miscpatches/jemalloc_in_xul.patch
[20:20] <asac> that patch basically links jemalloc against xulrunner-bin and xulrunner-stub
[20:21] <jdhore> thx, if it builds, will you push a -0ubuntu3 or wait till you get more patches?
[20:21] <asac> which - if i am not mistaken - should make the firefox binary produced by --with-libxul also build against that
[20:21] <asac> jdhore: when the patch works well, i can upload that to intrepid quite timely
[20:22] <jdhore> sweet
[20:32] <gnomefreak> email done for now
[20:35] <fta> hi
[20:43] <asac> hi fta
[20:43] <asac> fta: do you know why our build doesnt use run-mozilla.sh ? is that because of upstrea libxul-sdk behaviour or because of our firefox.sh thing?
[20:44] <asac> (firefox-3.0)
[20:45] <fta> libxul-sdk
[20:45] <asac> k
[20:45] <asac> lets see if -rpath=. helps
[20:45] <asac> i am actually quite happy that our firefox doesnt tweak LD_LIBRARY_PATH :)
[20:46] <asac> lets hope it can stay that way
[20:53] <gnomefreak> but as you see it involves more patches?
[20:58] <asac> gnomefreak: yeah
[20:58] <gnomefreak> apt-xapian-index hmmmmm
[20:59] <gnomefreak> i dont remember that package
[20:59] <gnomefreak> but it looks like its been here
[21:58] <asac> hehe .... ok, so fedor ships _all_ langpacks enabled by default :=
[21:59] <jdhore> heh
[21:59] <jdhore> That's intelligent :P
[21:59] <asac> well ... definitly consumes startup cycles for ffox :)
[22:00] <jdhore> and prolly for everything else
[22:00] <jdhore> hopefully grep will fix their utf8 bug soon
[22:00] <asac> not sure if its all languages to be fair. but there are a lot
[22:00] <asac> thing 20 or so
[22:01] <jdhore> A lot of stuff uses grep (compiling, opening apps, booting) and with this bug, grepping is ~7x slower than with the locale set to C
[22:03] <asac> when they pushed back fedora 9 two weeks or so i envied them as i thought they would get rc1 ;)
[22:03] <asac> but that didnt made the train
[22:03] <asac> :)
[22:03] <asac> fortunatley ;=
[22:04] <asac> 3.0 b5
[22:05] <jdhore> yea
[22:06] <jdhore> Fedora 9 is the most hack-job distro i've ever seen
[22:07] <asac> why?
[22:10] <asac> in NM 0.7 the VPN tab in connection editor just shows a standard "wired" form :)
[22:11] <asac> i saw that on trunk, but always assumed that dan fixed that for the fedora release or something
[22:12] <jdhore> they used a development version of X that STILL hasn't gone gold today, and no binary nVidia or ATI drivers were available for about a month after the F9 release
[22:12] <asac> oh
[22:12] <asac> 1.5.0
[22:12] <asac> i thought they shipped that ;)
[22:12] <asac> we ship 1.4.9999999 :)
[22:12] <jdhore> 1.5.0 isn't out yet
[22:12] <jdhore> It's still at 1.9.9999
[22:13] <asac> but maybe it just works for us because we ship those modules on our own :)
[22:13] <asac> jdhore: yeah. but i think they have a 1.5.0....pre version :)
[22:13] <jdhore> yea
[22:13] <jdhore> RC2
[22:13] <asac> we have a 1.4.999post :)
[22:13] <jdhore> and Hardy shipped 1.4.1
[22:13] <asac> right ;)
[22:15] <jdhore> Also, i think they shipped with glibc 2.8 which wasn't final till a few weeks after F9 Final
[22:15] <asac> ok, so flash is not installed by default. is that RH enterprise that ships that?
[22:15] <jdhore> no, i think no RH-based distros ship with it
[22:15] <asac> hmm
[22:16] <asac> so how do i install flash?
[22:16] <asac> a redhat guy claimed that they use nspluginwrapper in between
[22:16] <asac> i doubt that this happens if i install the adobe.com binary
[22:16] <jdhore> asac, you have to enable the livna repo and get it from there
[22:17]  * asac looks in software sources
[22:17] <asac> ok apparently locked (though not really obvious in UI) by the running package upgrade
[22:17] <asac> which is not really verbose i have to admit
[22:17] <jdhore> http://rpm.livna.org/rlowiki/
[22:18] <asac> i dont see what its doing, just that its doing something
[22:18] <asac> hmm ... apparently thats their visualization of packagekit
[22:19] <asac> lets see if adobe has fixed their installer :)
[22:20] <asac> ok at least that works ... looks like
[22:20] <asac> ha ... too early
[22:20] <asac> so adobe still doesnt support ffox 3 on linux
[22:20] <asac> at least not through the plugin finder service
[22:20] <asac> sad thing :-P
[22:21] <asac> selinux attach warnings in default install ... yay ;)
[22:21] <asac> mono tries to access /dev/null :)
[22:22] <asac> damn. this initial package upgrade is still running and i have no clue what its doing :(
[22:56] <jdhore> asac, did that patch succeed?
[22:59] <asac> jdhore: in principal yes. in pratice now ;)
[22:59] <jdhore> hehe
[23:00] <asac> firefox binary wants to pull in libjemalloc.so
[23:00] <asac> but doesnt find it, because its nowhere :)
[23:00] <fta> asac, wanna sponsor mozilla-devscripts 0.09 for intrepid ? i want to close it, it's big enough
[23:00] <asac> and if you build --with-libxul-sdk firefox binary is really a binary
[23:00] <asac> not a script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH
[23:00] <jdhore> gotcha, and i assume the patch puts it somewhere that firefox will find it?
[23:01] <asac> jdhore: no. the patch establish the behaviour above. the patch that makes firefox find it is still missing
[23:01] <jdhore> ah :(
[23:02] <fta> asac, what's the problem with jemalloc ?
[23:03] <asac> fta: not used ;)
[23:03] <fta> eh? when did it stop being used ?
[23:03] <asac> fta: when upstream dropped it from being statically linked against libxul
[23:04] <fta> hm
[23:04] <fta> did you fix it ?
[23:04] <asac> phone (one sec)
[23:30] <asac> fta: will be back in 6 minutes. have to grab some food
[23:40] <asac> fta: no its not completely fixed
[23:42] <asac> problem is that i dont want to add LD_LIBRARY_PATH
[23:47] <asac> good fedora has no jemalloc either ;)
[23:48] <asac> even though they add the proper library path
[23:48] <asac> hehe
[23:48] <asac> they would win with my patch
[23:49] <asac> i have to be more "ingoratn" and add xulrunner to ld.so.conf :(
[23:51] <jdhore> why is everyone breaking or not using jemalloc? It's awesome and made of epic win
[23:52] <asac> jdhore: its upstream who broke it for us :)
[23:52] <jdhore> ah
[23:53] <asac> they didnt think about distros shipping xulrunner
[23:53] <jdhore> and they don't really give a crap about linux (at least beltzner doesn't)
[23:54] <asac> well. actually, i think that nobody in the distros really welcomed the crazy idea to replace glibc malloc
[23:54] <jdhore> True, but they should if it helps as much as it does
[23:55] <asac> i dont have any hard numbers
[23:55] <asac> it surely help a bunch on windows
[23:55] <asac> err
[23:55] <asac> on their builds :)
[23:55] <asac> they use the old libc dont they?
[23:56] <asac> ok at least they dont do that anymore