ftaasac, how/where did this happen?00:00
Volansjust to notice, a couple of places where I have read of it: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/FmgHg9DTZBA/article.pl   (slashdot) http://risto.kurppa.fi/blog/user-needs-to-approve-firefox-eula-in-intrepid-on-first-run/ (from ubuntu planet)00:02
asacpwnguin: hey its weekend00:02
asachave better things to do than reading bugmail ;)00:02
asacfta: the requirement to display EULA?00:03
ftai mean, is that a change you did that i missed ?00:04
ftalol, https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/2700:04
ubottuLaunchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed]00:04
ftainteresting idea00:04
asacfta: why would it be irrelevant?00:06
fta? did I say irrelevant anywhere ?00:07
asacthe bug title does00:07
ftai'm just trying to understand if it's a wanted change, or a bug00:07
asacthe firstrun page?00:08
ftathe eula thing00:08
asacthats a requirement we got from mozilla ... like the bug says00:08
asacbut the comment is really interesting00:08
ftaoh, it's the 1st page, not the eula UI ?00:09
asacunfortunately doesnt work for non-admin users00:09
asacfta: right00:09
ftait's in ubufox ?00:09
asacfta: yeah00:09
ftaok, that's why i didn't see it00:09
asacfta: its unsure what has to happen with the "normal" firefox package00:11
wgrantasac: Parts of the EULA are irrelevant and parts are complete crap.00:19
asacwgrant: i think the wording and presentation can be improved00:20
asacwgrant: there is a bit confusion here i think00:21
wgrantI hope so.00:22
asac1. we display these terms on firstrun00:22
asac2. user technically doesnt need to accept those terms in order to use the browser00:22
wgrantUser does.00:23
wgrantWell, the EULA says so.00:23
asac3. from what i understand those terms would be effective even without displaying the EULA00:23
asacwgrant: where does the eula say so?00:23
asacwgrant: yes i think thats a problematic thing00:26
wgrantThere's no point in a EULA if I can use the browser without agreeing to it.00:27
asacthis bug and discussion will surely trigger some thoughts. so lets see.00:30
wgrantIndeed, but it will become rather too large to read.00:30
asacmost likely all parties are open to ideas on how to better do it00:30
wgrantDoesn't sound like Mozilla is.00:31
asacfrom what i understood they are bound by other agreements to display something00:31
wgrantThen those other agreements need to be fixed.00:32
asacbut i have no details00:32
wgrantA stunningly large number of people seem to be missing the fact that I used allcaps in the description because the EULA did :(00:32
asacfighting fire with fire usually doesnt contribute to effective discussions00:33
wgrantPerhaps not.00:33
asacbut yeah00:33
wgrantBut presenting all users with a lot of awful allcaps doesn't contribute to an effective first impression.00:34
wgrantHow does abrowser not violate the EULA?00:35
wgrantIt says I'm not allowed to remove or alter the branding.00:36
asacwhile i see the point in this argument. i dont think that the first impression is much of an issue here. users will likely not read it and the second run will have the normal home page00:36
wgrantBut I can't alter the code without removing the branding.00:36
wgrantIa am trapped.00:36
asacwgrant: it also states (iirc) that firefox is all opensource and you can change what you want00:36
asacwgrant: that paragraphs just means that you are not allowed to distribute that build as firefox with a different branding00:36
wgrantNo, it says that the source for portions of Firefox may be available.00:37
wgrantasac: Is abrowser not that same build but with different branding?00:38
IntuitiveNippleIt's a badly written license in the first place, and imposing conditions on users goes against the F/OSS principles00:38
asacwgrant: abrowser isnt mozilla firefox anymore ... thus its not bound00:38
wgrantThe license states that the executable is the Product.00:39
asacthats strange00:39
wgrantI cannot remove branding from the Product.00:39
wgrant"The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the “Product”)"00:39
wgrant"You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product."00:39
VolansI'm finished now to make a diff between FF2 and FF3 EULA and I don't see any difference but a little paragraph added for the anti-phishing stuffs00:40
wgrantVolans: I didn't ever see a FF2 EULA.00:41
wgrantI wasn't advised that I had to agree to it.00:41
Volansseems that also FF1.5 have one00:41
VolansI'm discovering it now00:41
wgrantThings in main shouldn't have use restrictions.00:42
wgrantIf they don't have use restrictions, they don't need EULA.00:42
wgrantThus anything that needs a EULA shouldn't be in main.00:42
IntuitiveNippleThe license was, I think, originally intended for Windows distribution where people were modifying the Firefox branding slightly00:42
wgrantIt is clearly intended for the Windows distribution.00:43
wgrantAs it refers to the installer.00:43
Volanswgrant: also a binary deb package is an "installer" ;)00:44
wgrantVolans: Yes, but it lacks elements referred to by the EULA.00:44
wgrantInstalling the Firefox deb doesn't ask me to install additional third-party software.00:45
IntuitiveNipplewgrant: what bothers me is a phrase in term 3, "except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement." - I don't see any IP rights being expressly granted in the rest of the license, only restrictions on use or legal recourse, do you?00:45
wgrantIntuitiveNipple: It seems that way.00:45
wgrantAnd it's not Firefox's business to say that anything I install using gnome-app-install later might be under a different license.00:46
IntuitiveNippleIf the license were about the Mozilla-owned trademarks for Firefox it should be much clearer, and lose a lot of the terms. On it's face it isn't about protecting the trademark, but about limiting use and legal recourse.00:46
asacwell. so what do you want to do about the anti-phishing thing?00:47
asacturn it off? so it doesnt need to be displayed?00:47
IntuitiveNippleThe export term for example, is non-sensicle since many users won't get it originally from the USA anyhow.00:47
wgrantasac: What does that have to do with anything?00:48
wgrantThe only reference to it in the EULA seems to be that it might not be 100% accurate.00:48
IntuitiveNippleI think Canonical legal reps need to to talk to Mozilla about this, point out the inconsistencies00:48
wgrantDoesn't the GPL's warranty disclaimer do that?00:48
Volansasac: no, that paragraph is the only difference between FF3 and FF1.5 / FF2 EULA, but don't have any legal reason to show the EULA to the user00:49
IntuitiveNippleWhat other F/OSS has a provision to terminate the end-user's right to use?00:49
Volansso I think is not due to that part of the EULA but for political reasons00:49
wgrantIntuitiveNipple: I was thinking about that. I think that only distribution can be terminated by the GPL, not use.00:49
Volansread very carefully the 3.  PROPRIETARY RIGHTS paragraph00:49
wgrantUse termination seems a bit wrong.00:49
Volanstaking in mind what is the "Prodict" -> "The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product")"00:50
IntuitiveNipplewgrant: Isn't the source distributed under the Mozilla public license? That was the one I've just been reading to see how they work together.00:50
wgrantIntuitiveNipple: It's tri-licensed.00:50
IntuitiveNipplewgrant: It's damned confusing is what it is!00:50
wgrantMozilla seems to like to do that.00:51
wgrantVolans: What are you pointing out?00:51
wgrantIntuitiveNipple: It's MPL | GPL | LGPL, so as long as any one of those doesn't allow termination of use, your use rights probably cannot be removed.00:52
wgrantI presume.00:52
VolansI'm not a lawyer, but seems that the EULA tell the user that the source code is realeased under open source licenses and that "Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses."00:52
wgrantThen why the fsck is it there?00:52
wgrantIt doesn't grant any additional rights.00:52
Volansbut just after that it say that you can not remove etc...00:53
wgrantAnd it says it doesn't restrict the rights.00:53
wgrantSo it does nothing.00:53
Volansbut the most important thing... starting that is the same (not to mention the phishing paragraph) of FF2, why for FF3 Mozilla require to shoe it?00:53
wgrantBecause Mozilla Corp is trying to be annoying, perhaps.00:54
wgrant130 comments...00:54
asaci think the main point why we need to display it are the anti-phishing terms00:54
wgrantasac: Which paragraph?00:54
wgrantDoes that imply that if I find any misleading information on the Internet I can sue the people for damages unless they explicitly disclaim it?00:55
asacno ... and thats why the idea to display that as a firstrun page came up00:55
asace.g. the user doesnt need to agree to be bound00:56
wgrantBut it says I do!00:56
wgrantIt explicitly says that I must not use the browser unless I agree.00:56
asacyes. thats a bug in the EULA text imo. imo it shouldnt be called EULA00:56
Volansasac: you think so because you know it, or you imagine because is the only difference with the old EULA?00:56
asacand just state the terms that more like a "reminder"00:56
wgrantWhy do I need a > 1000 word EULA to state those 46 words which are overly verbose anyway?00:57
asacthats the point and i am sure that we will provide feedback to mozilla based on what we got ;)00:57
wgrantWhy was this change made without telling anybody?00:58
wgrantAnd without arguing this first?00:58
asacmainly because of timing00:58
wgrantAnyway, I must move to another lecture theatre. I shall return in a few minutes.00:58
VolansI think that this question should be "solved" very quickly, in Ubuntu and with Mozilla, to avoid a lot of discussions about it (like google chrome license mistake)00:59
asacthe code existed for quite some time in bzr.00:59
asacVolans: well. this needs a decision ;)01:00
Volansin Ubuntu or in Mozilla?01:00
asacon both sides01:01
VolansI think that asking directly and quickly Mozilla can lead to a solution01:01
asacVolans: we are constantly talking with them.01:01
ftastill not a single commit in g chrome about linux or mac...01:01
VolansI'm sure01:01
ftalooks like it's in another branch01:01
asacfta: maybe "behind" the wall ;)01:03
Volanswe can always say that at limit (worse case) we can change the default browser to epiphany or abrowser if a common solution can't be found01:03
Volans(sorry, in the night my english crash)01:03
Volansbut I hope that a better solution can be found ;)01:04
IntuitiveNippleIf the only reason for the license is protecting the Firefox trademark and brand images, all is needed is to replace those.01:04
Volansthe fundamental point is why Mozilla want to show this EULA01:04
VolansIntuitiveNipple: is what abrowser is... firefoxx without branding01:04
wgrantasac: So I am required to monitor every package VCS in order to complain that something wasn't discussed publicly?01:05
asacwgrant: no01:05
asacyou can always complain that something wasnt discussed01:05
asacas i said it was a timing01:06
IntuitiveNippleWell, I guess its good to have something important like this to get worked up about, instead of the devastation in Galveston or the price of milk :)01:06
Volansasac: as I know in the source code of Firefox there aren't the brand images and logos, right?01:08
asacVolans: they are in the other-licenses/ folder01:08
Volansok, and we ship this all toghether in binary packages in main, right?01:10
wgrantIt would seem to be trivial to take the branding out of the source and banish it to restricted.01:11
asacVolans: now the marks and images are ni the -branding packages01:11
asacso we can do whtever we want01:11
Volanswas exactly what I'm wondering01:11
asacwgrant: the source isnt the problem (except for the non-free images - which is a different issue afaict)01:11
Volansship the brand in a separate package in multiverse or restricted01:11
wgrantasac: Right, the non-free images.01:11
Volansand the clean browser, so abrowser, in main01:11
asacwgrant: thats one reason why the branding split was a good thing to do01:12
wgrantIt's nice being able to switch the branding just by installing another package.01:12
asacwe could push the -branding binaries into restricted/multiverse01:12
Volansthis IS the solution IMHO01:12
asacwgrant: you can now: sudo apt-get install abrowser -> free ; sudo apt-get install firefox -> trademark01:12
wgrantasac: That's what I did a couple of days ago. Excellent work.01:13
wgrantBut abrowser still shows the EULA.01:13
Volansmaybe saying this in the start page of FF, this is forefox without branding, if you want the firefox brand install this package (that will show the EULA)01:13
asacwgrant: yes. thats a bug imo01:13
IntuitiveNipplehang-on, if we take that license to its illogical conclusion, does that mean Mozilla can prevent me from wearing my Firefox-branded polo shirt? :)01:13
wgrantAnd the real solution is to get Mozilla to be less tupid.01:13
Volansasac: but the firefox package is all firefox or only the brand part?01:14
asacwell. i am sure that every time a knight falls that mozilla reputation also suffers. ubuntu being forced to move firefox branding to restricted would certainly send a signal to them01:14
wgrantasac: Which package actually contains the binaries?01:14
asacwgrant: firefox-3.0 ... but package names cannot be covered by trademarks as far as its understood01:14
wgrantasac: As far as I can tell, Mozilla have no issues with being utter bastards. I don't think us moving stuff to restricted would have any effect.01:14
asacwgrant: the branding bits are in firefox-3.0-branding and abrowser-3.0-branding01:15
wgrantDoes the world end if I remove both?01:15
asacwgrant: thats your opinion. my opinion is that even mozilla can change ;)01:15
asacwgrant: if you remove both branidng packages firefox-3.0 will be remove doo01:15
wgrantasac: They've just been getting worse. I can't see them turning, but yes that is just my opinion.01:15
wgrantasac: Right, good.01:15
Volansasac: you can't do the thing in a manner that abrowser + firefox-3.0-branding packages is the same as installing FF3?01:16
asacfirefox-3.0 Depends: firefox-3.0-branding | abrowser-3.0-branding01:16
asacfirefox Depends: firefox-3.0, firefox-3.0-branding01:16
Volanswhy have both?01:16
asacabrowser Depedns: firefox-3.0, abrowser-3.0-branding01:16
wgrantVolans: abrowser and firefox seem to conflict.01:16
wgrantVolans: There's no point having both.01:16
wgrantIf you install one, the other is removed.01:16
asacabrowser is the meta package tracking the latest abrowser01:17
asacfirefox the same for firefox01:17
Volanswgrant:  no I mean both in the archive,sorry01:17
wgrantVolans: I still don't see what you mean.01:17
asacwgrant: i think he also wants abrowser-3.001:17
VolansI try to explain myself01:18
asacand if you install abrowser-3.0 + firefox-3.0-branding01:18
asacyou get firefox ;)01:18
wgrantI think it would be good if Mozilla would name the Firefox codebase something else, like Chrome vs Chromium.01:18
asacVolans: i think that doesnt really give you much benefit01:18
Volansyou can avoid a duplicate in the archives01:18
asacat some point we could rename firefox-3.0 to abrowser-3.0-base01:18
asacor something01:18
asacand make firefox use that01:18
Volansactually you have abrowserXX and firefoxXX that are practically the same thing, right?01:18
wgrantOr firefox-core or something.01:18
asacbut for now i didnt bother to rename firefox-3.001:18
asacwgrant: yeah. but firefox-core would again have firefox in the name01:19
asacand abrowser-core would have abrowser in the name01:19
asacso we would need a third name ;)01:19
wgrantabrowser seems to be having a name crisis.01:19
wgrantabrowser, A Web Browser, Web Browser.01:19
asaclike: some-browser-base-3.0 ;)01:20
Volansfirejackalope-base :)01:20
Jazzvaor just browser-base-version01:20
Jazzvabut, that's too generic01:20
wgrantI agree with the archive-admin-forced renaming of the package.01:21
asacwe had webbrowser as name ... but that wasnt allowed in by archive admins01:21
wgrantBut it is a bit inconsistent.01:21
asaci guess they wont allow browser-base in  ;)01:21
Jazzvaasac, yeah :)01:21
Nafallowgrant: stop being here but not there? :-)01:21
asacwgrant: what is inconsistent?01:21
Volanswhat we can do without much work (and with a big signal to Mozilla) is to install abrowser with abrowser brand as default browser, explaining why and how the user can do to install FF brand in the Start Page... what do you think about?01:21
wgrantasac: abrowser is named abrowser, A Web Browser and Web Browser in various places.01:22
wgrantNafallo: I have no XMPP client on this X terminal.01:22
wgrantAnd no free powerpoint for my laptop.01:22
Nafallowgrant: FAIL01:22
wgrantSolaris 9 fail.01:22
asacwgrant: those are bugs then01:22
asacwgrant: well. abrowser is the package name. not sure if we want that as the name in the UI01:23
wgrantasac: Probably not.01:23
wgrantBut the .desktop has "A Web Browser"01:23
asacyes. maybe that should be just Web Browser01:23
Volansasac: my proposal is too hard (politically speaking)?01:24
Volansyes, "Web Browser" can be a good solution IMO01:24
asacVolans: well. this all depends on what mozilla does01:24
wgrantWe should await response from our not-so-benevolent Canonical and Mozilla overlords, I suspect.01:25
Volansyou can use in the default installation a package from restricted/multiverse?01:25
asacmy personal opinion is that whatever happens we should send a strong signal, but dont be too aggressive01:25
JazzvaI'd say "A Web Browser"... iirc, KDE shows description first, then app's name under desc... it might confuse someone to see "Web Browser - Web Browser".01:25
Jazzvaalso A Web Browser is unbranded, but it's still not so generic as Web Browser only :)01:25
wgrantasac: Right.01:25
asacthis whole thing probably will cause more coverage and noise. so give both parties a bit time to define what they want and can accept01:25
Volanssure, just keep in mind also this possibility :) (the Start Page part is fundamental to be not too aggressive)01:27
wgrantHmm, I see we're slashdotted.01:35
Volansyes, I have put the link before01:35
wgrantI wonder how long it will be until LP collapses.01:39
* Hobbsee has warned them.01:39
Hobbseeso, lifeless has seen it.01:39
pwnguinunfortunately, bugmail is not slashdot, with ratings and moderation and parenting02:08
Volans145 comments so far...02:10
VolansI think that if also with abrowser the EULA Is shown the bug can be filled also for abrowser package.02:11
pwnguindoes it?02:11
Volanssomeone before tell this, wait a second02:11
pwnguinjust test it. install it, make a new user02:12
VolansI'm not running intrepid now02:12
Volansand it's very late for me... time to go to sleep...02:12
Volanssee you tomorrow, good night02:12
Volansand "good" EULA :)02:12
Jazzvapwnguin, abrowser shows it.02:17
Jazzvaasac, this can be easily sorted out... just check browser's name and if it's equal "firefox", show eula (if we still need to show it in the future)02:18
Jazzvaweird... I also got two empty pages with uri chrome://ubufox/content/startpage.html02:19
[reed]wow, I just saw bug 26965602:28
[reed]that's a mess02:28
ubottuLaunchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/26965602:28
[reed]so many crazy comments02:37
[reed]from people who have no idea what they're saying ;)02:38
=== asac_ is now known as asac
[reed]asac: ping?03:56
mdkeasac: ok I've uploaded the first ubuntu-docs package to https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-doc/+archive/. However, it hasn't removed the symlinks in /etc/alternatives. Does that matter, or is it enough that the links won't be installed for intrepid?08:10
gnomefreakbug 25642809:08
ubottuLaunchpad bug 256428 in thunderbird "Lightning extension will not properly display calendar" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/25642809:08
=== asac_ is now known as asac
gnomefreakfinally i fixed X09:48
gnomefreakoh shit there was a meeting yesterday?09:50
asacgnomefreak: yeah.09:56
gnomefreaksorry forgot about it :(09:57
gnomefreakasac: did you guys come up with anything for the topics (atleast the ones i see on agenda)09:59
ubottuOfficial channel logs can be found at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ - For LoCo channels, http://logs.ubuntu-eu.org/freenode/10:00
asacgnomefreak: look at log. i will write minutes later today10:06
gnomefreaki couldnt find them10:06
gnomefreaki tried 13 14 and 15th10:07
gnomefreaksince they are in UTC time last i heard10:07
asacgnomefreak: 19h10:08
asac18h UTC10:08
asacwas the time10:08
asacgnomefreak: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/09/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html10:08
asacthe log basically starts wiuth out meeting10:08
gnomefreaki used txt10:08
asacshouldnt matter10:09
asaceveryghing that happend yesterday is our meeting10:09
gnomefreakthanks ill read it10:10
gnomefreakbtw if you are removing ff2 remove all extensions for ff2 leaving them in archive is usless and the ones that havent been upgraded to 3 should atleast have a bug reported or added to extensions page. (this shouldnt be an issue if you look at the extensions page10:13
gnomefreakif the extension is build for support on ff3 you dont need to add |abrowser as they still work in abrowser10:15
gnomefreakafaik updating extensions for 3.0 as long as they are in archive they shoudnt need excetion. only new ones if we are able to get into intrepid would need it10:31
gnomefreakand im not sure how FFE works10:32
asacgnomefreak: we need abrowser because firefox package wont be installed when abrowser is10:39
asacits nothing we need to fix in code, just a minor depends tweaking10:39
gnomefreakasac: i know im using abrowser with the extensions and they work fine10:40
gnomefreaki have abrowser installed10:40
asacgnomefreak: it might be that we removed the firefox depends from the extensions10:40
gnomefreakshouldnt since ff3 stays on system10:40
asacbut there are definitly a few left that have that10:40
asacgnomefreak: some depend on firefox-3.010:40
asacbut some also depend on firefox10:40
asacthose that depend on firefox either needs firefox dropped from depends or get | abrowser10:41
gnomefreaki think firegpg depends on both and it works in abrowser but i can surely remove firefox and add abrowser that is simple to do but it wont make it in INtrepid so i have a few months to work on it10:42
Kamping_Kaiserevening blokes10:42
asacgnomefreak: i think new extensions shouldnt depend on anything. Recommends would be good10:42
gnomefreakIMHO keep both incase people dont install abrower10:42
asachi Kamping_Kaiser10:42
Kamping_Kaisershould things recomend when apt does recomends by default now?10:43
gnomefreakasac: they should depend on something or its likely not gonna work10:43
asacKamping_Kaiser: not sure. maybe suggests then10:43
asacbut recommends wont hurt10:43
gnomefreakKamping_Kaiser: that makes recommends not needed in INtrepid but hardy and lower should still use it10:43
Kamping_Kaisergnomefreak, valid point10:43
asacimo its what we want. if users install an extension they get everything they need to use it10:43
gnomefreakasac: than we dont need suggests since there isnt a need for it with extensions10:44
asacgnomefreak: yes. i am find with depends but then we have to depends on everything ;)10:44
asace.g. firefox | iceweasel | abrowser10:44
gnomefreakasac: right sort of10:44
gnomefreaklast i heard we dont want iceweasle as a dep since we dont have it10:45
asacgnomefreak: however, you can also use the extensions without anything installed10:45
asacyou can download firefox from upstream10:45
asacand link the packaged extension directory tot he downloaded firefox extensions/ dir10:45
asaci had at least one inquiry in the past about that10:45
asace.g. he wanted to use enigmail i think, but didnt want to be required to use it with the packaged tbird10:45
gnomefreakso we want to keep iceweaesl even though we dont support it?10:47
asaci am not hard about it10:47
asacbut i think in the long run we want to push our extensions to debian too10:47
asacso keeping it wont hurt10:48
gnomefreakwe can if needed. i have one im gonna start work on for debian i just havent gotten to fix it yet10:48
Kamping_Kaisercan it depend on x-www-browser or similar?10:48
Kamping_Kaiserbut i guess that would encompas non-firefoxy browsers10:49
gnomefreakim thinking we cant do that since an extension doesnt always support other browsers10:49
gnomefreakim sure we can add support to some but would rather keep it less general but i dont seee that big of an issue with it10:50
gnomefreakasac: i will fix firegpg but i highly doubt it will make Intrepid due to FF10:51
gnomefreakeh maybe ill hit debians bug this week or next week10:54
asacgnomefreak: we can grant our own FF exceptions10:59
asacKamping_Kaiser: unfortunately not10:59
gnomefreakasac: oh10:59
asacKamping_Kaiser: also depend on x-www-browser would probably ned to read ffox-compatible-xul-browser ;)10:59
Kamping_Kaiserhehe. bit long really10:59
asacKamping_Kaiser: right. but x-www-browser is too broad. we could also just recommend then11:00
gnomefreakshould we remove firefox-2 from deps?11:02
gnomefreakeh ill leave it incase people go back to -2 from upstream11:03
asacgnomefreak: yes. thats the ida11:03
gnomefreakoh ok11:03
asacwe will remove firefox-2 ... as of mozillateam meeting decision11:03
asacand all its rdepends11:03
asacif there is an extension that only supports ffox 2 we should see if we can fix that by upgrading11:04
asacotherwise it needs to be removed too11:04
gnomefreakok sounds good11:04
gnomefreakasac: firegpg is all fixed i will finish on chatzilla hopfully today11:23
gnomefreakwhy the hell wont bzr bd --merge --dont-purge --export-upstream=/home/gnomefreak/package/package.upstream/ work11:38
gnomefreakah much better :)11:42
gnomefreakwhere would i find the instructions on -med-unpack?11:48
asacgnomefreak: there are no instructions yet. they should go to the wiki though11:51
asacgnomefreak: here is how it works:11:51
asacmed-xpi-unpack will unpack the .xpi in a normalized fashion11:51
asacsh build.sh then just needs to do med-xpi-pack11:51
asacand all is fine11:51
gnomefreakwll after doing that uncommenting sh build.sh in rules fails as always11:52
asacgnomefreak: what is in build.sh exactly?11:53
gnomefreakMOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND = sh build.sh11:53
gnomefreakerror isnt helpful IMHO11:54
gnomefreakmkdir -p "."11:54
gnomefreaksh build.sh11:54
gnomefreaksh: Can't open build.sh11:54
gnomefreakmake: *** [build/chatzilla] Error 211:54
gnomefreakdpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 211:54
gnomefreakbzr: ERROR: The build failed.11:54
gnomefreakthats with sh build.sh uncommented11:54
gnomefreakcommenting it works11:56
gnomefreakcommenting it out11:56
asacgnomefreak: what _is_ in builds.sh11:56
asacyou didnt answer my question ;)11:56
asac< asac> gnomefreak: what is in build.sh exactly?11:56
gnomefreakasac: where is it found?11:57
gnomefreakafaik it doesnt have one11:57
asacgnomefreak: it _must_ be in the top level directory11:57
gnomefreakits all java11:57
asacgnomefreak: well .... then it doesnt work11:57
asacyou have to write build.sh11:57
asacgnomefreak: ok. dont use build.sh as comment, but11:57
gnomefreakcommenting it out made it work11:57
gnomefreakasac: already did11:57
asacgnomefreak: did what?11:57
asacyou still have MOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND = sh build.sh11:58
asacwhich mean you didnt do it11:58
asacgnomefreak: maybe that read med-xpi pack with the _proper_ arguments11:58
asacmed-xpi-pack . extensionname.xpi11:58
gnomefreakMOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND = sh build.sh sint needed since it builds fine without it11:58
asacgnomefreak: believe me11:59
asacif you dont have that nothing will happen11:59
asacgnomefreak: you need to provide build.sh11:59
asacand make fire gpg build there11:59
gnomefreaki already did the med-unpack it made upstream source i than built tar.gz and built package11:59
asacwhat extension are we talking about?11:59
asacgnomefreak: read what i wrote12:00
gnomefreakfiregpg is done and fine12:00
asaci didnt write med-xpi-unpüack12:00
gnomefreakasac: i already did it12:00
asaci know that you did that12:00
asacgnomefreak: what you need is _med-xpi-pack_12:00
asac_pack_ (not _unpack_)12:00
gnomefreakalready did it12:00
asacthat has to be done instead of build.sh12:00
gnomefreaki couldnt think of nam eof it12:00
asacgnomefreak: if you already use med-xpi-pack instead of build.sh then it should work fine12:01
gnomefreakasac: and that is what i said commenting out build.sh in rules worked12:01
asacgnomefreak: i dont understand12:01
gnomefreaki uncommented it 2 weeks ago when i was testing it12:01
gnomefreaki commented it back and it builds fine12:01
asacgnomefreak: so everythng is ok?12:01
asacwhy are we debating then?12:01
gnomefreaknothing now i just had the error with it uncommented but i fixed that by commenting it out12:02
gnomefreakok branches are fixed and packages build fine and are being pushed to ppa12:28
asacgnomefreak: thanks. let me know when they built and work so i can review them12:29
gnomefreaki lied i have to fix one thing in chatzilla12:34
gnomefreakasac: firegpg*~jjv1 is done and built https://edge.launchpad.net/~gnomefreak/+archive   ~jjv1 is latest and i used that version so it doesnt conflict with official build12:41
gnomefreakand chatzilla*~jjv1 is on its way to build12:42
gnomefreakasac: chazilla*~jjv1 is built as well12:50
gnomefreakand no lintian warnings ;)12:51
asacill look after lunch (now)12:54
gnomefreakwell i cant start on the next one without chroots set up12:54
gnomefreakasac: thanks12:54
* gnomefreak gonna do breakfast12:55
asacdebian bug 49749116:49
ubottuError: Could not parse data returned by Debian bugtracker: global name 'ls' is not defined (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497491;mbox=yes)16:50
gnomefreakis XPI.TEMPLATE on a ~devel branch?18:21
asac_gnomefreak: reconnect. XPI.TEMPLATE is a devel branch i guess (depends on how you define that)18:28
asac_its an example branch (e.g. its nothing that gets released)18:28
[reed]I'm glad that 99.9% of the people commenting on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269656 don't have power over my Ubuntu.18:31
ubottuLaunchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed]18:31
gnomefreakthat doesnt happen anymore last i heard.18:34
* asac_ dinner bbl18:34
=== asac_ is now known as asac
jcastro[reed]: heh18:45
[reed]jcastro: it's true!18:45
[reed]the comments are ridiculous18:46
[reed]they don't know what they're talking about18:46
jcastro[reed]: I am about to file a bug report on our greasemonkey scripts to filter comments on a threshold18:46
jcastroyou know, for those of us that use the bug tracker to get work done18:46
ftaso, what happened today with that eula stuff ? any progress in a direction or another ?18:46
jcastrofta: no, it's just linked off of /. and digg and every place, so now we have people arguing over god knows what18:48
jcastroeven the groklaw lady is posting in the bug now.18:49
[reed]and I like groklaw, too18:49
[reed]how said18:49
jcastroI think if we can get RMS and ESR to throw in their opinions that the bug reporter gets a set of steak knives.18:49
[reed]I can't type today.18:49
gnomefreakall licenses have restrictions yes including GPL LGPL MPL and EULA so if you dont want to use it dont install something else is it really that hard to do?18:55
* gnomefreak wonders if xulrunner has licenses ;)18:56
gnomefreakthat would cancle out any xul based browser and there would be maybe 3 that dont use it18:57
[reed]is a pretty smart comment ;)18:57
ubottuLaunchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed]18:57
gnomefreakthat wsa good18:59
gnomefreaktoo many people splitting hairs and comming way to close to just a "rant" nothing more nothing less18:59
[reed]and all the comments about money from google crack me up, too19:00
[reed]considering Ubuntu has their own agreement with Google ;)19:00
SUNWjoejaxxgnomefreak: !! :D19:01
gnomefreakhi jo19:02
SUNWjoejaxxgnomefreak: how are you doing :)19:02
gnomefreakhi SUNWjoejaxx  im ok and you?19:02
SUNWjoejaxxthat is great to hear19:02
SUNWjoejaxxi am the same19:02
[reed]doesn't OOo show a EULA on first use?19:03
jcastroi don't think so19:05
jcastroyou get to stare at the sun branded splash for like 2 minutes though. :D19:05
gnomefreak[reed]: no they dont19:06
[reed]thought somebody said they did19:06
[reed]oh well19:06
gnomefreak[reed]: it hs a eula but doesnt show it19:06
gnomefreakit has a EULA even19:06
gnomefreakinstalling it in windows you habve to agree to license19:07
gnomefreaki just dont remember what one it is19:07
gnomefreak[reed]: xul has EULA doesnt it?19:07
gnomefreaki dont have a recent source on here of it19:08
[reed]don't think so19:08
gnomefreakseperate app should have it since its needed for browser19:08
Lnsasac: you around?19:25
gnomefreakhes at dinner19:25
Lnsgnomefreak: oh wow. ok =)19:27
Lnshey anyone have knowledge of sqlite behavior in FF3?19:27
[reed]jcastro: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17625985/ubuntu_firefox.png made me fall out of my chair19:42
jcastro[reed]: yeah it's pretty awesome19:42
jcastro[reed]: the best is Mozilla Cooperation19:42
[reed]saw that19:42
[reed]hah, now somebody is poking at the MPL19:43
[reed]jcastro: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/19:45
[reed]asac / fta: ^19:46
jcastroI saw. :D19:46
[reed]we're very confused19:47
[reed](we being just MoCo people that aren't hja, mitchell, etc.)19:48
Lnswow... no man page for FF3 in Hardy, eh?19:49
ftafile a bug19:49
ftai don't really need one, firefox -h does the trick for me19:50
Lnsfta: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/115112/20:04
ubottuLaunchpad bug 115112 in firefox "Missing man page" [Medium,Confirmed]20:04
* gnomefreak wonders if ff2 and ff3 differs that much that man page wont work for both20:06
gnomefreakat least i thought they did20:06
Lnshey asac .. just fyi i'm making some good headway regarding my LTSP setups and FF3 sqlite/fsync stuff20:07
Lnsi'm going out to test today20:07
asac[reed]: asa's comment on http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/09/15/ubuntu-firefox-and-license-issues/ is wrong i think ... at least i red a blog today how redhat understood that EULA made no sense and dont show any EULA since fedora 720:08
asacanyway. lets wait for senior guys to figure out what exactly to do. i think we received enough community input to know that this is critical ;)20:09
asacLns: ok.20:11
asacLns: i might not be here in a an hour or so. what timezone are you in?20:11
gandihi asac !20:11
Lnsasac: GMT+8 ibelieve (PST, california)20:11
Lnsasac: no worries though. I'll update bugs and such20:12
gnomefreakif we made it like kde apps and man pages it would be great20:12
asachi gandi ;)20:12
gnomefreakkde uses an auto gen manpage IIRC20:12
asacLns: everything in americ is GMT-SOMETHING ;)20:13
gnomefreakim assuming a script in kmake20:13
asacso probably you have GMT-8 ;)20:13
Lnsasac: lol... yeah it was either + or - 8.20:13
gnomefreakcalifornia is -820:13
* gnomefreak -400 east coast20:13
* Lns is still getting used to globalization ;)20:13
gnomefreakLns: in a month it will change again20:14
asacgnomefreak: -400 ... thats like you trail 15 days behind ;)20:14
gnomefreakthan maybe -920:14
asacjust kiddin ;)20:14
gnomefreakasac: :)20:14
* Lns thinks the whole world should just go back to Local Time. ;)20:14
asacLns: you can remember that the sun rises in the east and you are in the west ;)20:14
* gnomefreak still wondes why towns choose not to change times if the rest of the state does20:14
asacso you cant be ahead  :)20:14
asac(well at least if you udnerstood that GMT goes through england and that england is in th east of america ;))20:15
gnomefreakoh crap i neve thought of it that way20:15
asacgnomefreak: now you are one step closer to become a "world-citizen" ;)20:15
Lnsasac: i think i can remember that ;)20:15
ftamozilla Bug 45419220:16
ubottuMozilla bug 454192 in Build Config "Firefox-bin doesn't use jemalloc on Linux/Solaris" [Normal,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45419220:16
gnomefreak;) yep. let me know what you decide on firefox man page if we do it might as well update all our packages to include one20:16
gnomefreakif you try to empty an empty trash bin you get prompted to remove everything shoudlnt it prompt that nothing is there20:20
asacgnomefreak: i think a manpage would be nice-to-have ... but not really required20:21
asacits not a feature so we dont need a freeze exception or anything because of that20:21
asacif we have the manpage content we can just include it20:22
gnomefreakman page == too much wording IMHO20:22
gnomefreak--help is same with less garbage20:22
* gnomefreak hasnt made a successfule man page yet and i havent really been tempted to try since fiesty20:23
asacmanpage could be similar to --help output20:23
asacwell ... if someone ask just tell him that we are open to accept contributions20:23
asacotherwise manpage have more or less low prio20:23
gnomefreakworks for me20:24
gnomefreaki guess i should get this cd copied so i can get out of here and get to store20:24
[reed]asac: I know that Red Hat is involved in these discussions, too20:26
* gnomefreak always thought of firefox as restricted not free20:29
gnomefreakbut thats me20:29
gnomefreak1455 minutes to burn 10 tracks :(20:31
gnomefreak[reed]: is there any way to get tbird devs to not use .6 lightning in tbird 320:35
gnomefreakthey need to bump that to 1.0 release of lightning20:35
asac[reed]: no. what i mean is that asa said that all linux distros display an EULA  (for their own product) ... thats not true20:35
gnomefreak2054 minutes   gnomebaker has a bug i think its not counting down but up20:36
asac[reed]: but well ... thats just a detail. so nothing to poke about ;)20:37
[reed]gnomefreak: file a bug? talk to the devs?20:37
[reed]asac: ah20:37
gnomefreak[reed]: everytime i go to comment on the mozilla dev list it doesnt show up and they said it should as long as i used the right email and i did20:38
[reed]"the mozilla dev list" ?20:41
gnomefreak[reed]: yes mailing list20:41
[reed]what mailing list?20:41
[reed]there are tons20:41
gnomefreak[reed]: let me look20:41
gnomefreakdev-apps-calendar is one of them20:42
[reed]how are you sending mail?20:42
fta[reed], i guess you read this: http://glandium.org/blog/?p=20620:43
gnomefreak[reed]: from tbird20:43
[reed]fta: no, I don't follow his blog, so thanks for showing it20:43
[reed]again, he doesn't understand the reasoning20:43
[reed]it's all really about safe browsing in the end ;)20:43
[reed]gnomefreak: newsgroup or e-mail?20:43
[reed]to dev-apps-calendar@lists.mozilla.org ?20:44
gnomefreakther was others that i think i tried but atm thats all i have in inbox is dev-apps-calenaar20:44
[reed]fta: n/m20:45
[reed]I didn't actually read his entire blog post before saying that20:45
[reed]yeah, he's semi-right20:45
asac[reed]: well. actually that blog entry exactly points out paragraph 5. which is the safebrowsing20:45
[reed]it's all really about safe browsing20:45
asac[reed]: ah20:45
[reed]I thought he was going in another direction20:46
asac[reed]: if that would really be the case then we could display a notification box when that service is used which allows the user to disable it20:46
asac[reed]: yeah. of course he tries to make another point ;)20:46
ftathere's even a poll to drop ff from intrepid: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=91963020:47
mdkeasac: got a moment?20:47
asacmdke: yeah20:48
gnomefreakwhy drop it why not just use something else like abrowser20:48
mdkeasac: cody-somerville tells me that ubufox is using those alternatives after all... I'd understood that that wasn't the case?20:48
asacgnomefreak: well. i think that is subsumed as an option20:48
ftayahooo: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue108#MOTU20:49
asacmdke: huh?20:49
mdkeasac: has he talked to you already?20:49
asacmdke: yes.20:49
asacmdke: i just have to recap that conversation ;)20:49
asacgive me a moment20:49
mdkeasac: so what he told me was that if ubufox detects that the user is offline, it points at the alternative (so that for xubuntu, an xubuntu page is displayed rather than an ubuntu page)20:50
[reed]fta: so, are you fta@ubuntu.com now? :)20:50
[reed]ah, cool20:50
asacmdke: i said to cody that i am not sure whether the xubuntu page would still be displayed (without doing anything) if we drop all alternatives20:50
fta[reed], thx20:51
asacmdke: just as a warning that we might need to do something ... or keep the distro alternatives20:51
mdkeasac: gosh, that's a bit of a surprise to me. I'd understood that xubuntu would have to ship its own "xubufox" in order to get a startpage20:52
asacmdke: well. there are two options.20:52
asac1. ship xubufox20:52
asac2. fix ubufox _or_ keep some alternatives20:52
mdkethree options :)20:52
asacok ... ;)20:52
asacmdke: so ... i wasnt aware that xubuntu ships ubufox anyway20:53
mdkeok, so it would be possible to make ubufox detect which distro the user is running?20:53
asacanyway. all i said is that we need to do something20:53
asacxubufox would also fall in that category ;)20:53
mdkeyes, that sounds like a good solution20:53
asacmdke: i am not sure. whate we can detect is whether xfce or gnome or kde or something else is running20:54
mdkeah, great20:54
asacmdke: but i guess that we can detect whetheer its xubuntu using lsb_release20:54
asacmdke: you have xubuntu?20:54
asac$ lsb_release -a20:54
asacNo LSB modules are available.20:54
asacDistributor ID:Ubuntu20:54
asacDescription:Ubuntu intrepid (development branch)20:54
mdkeasac: no, not right now20:55
asacso ... xubuntu probably should have Xubuntu in there somewhere20:55
mdkeI dunno if xubuntu changes lsb release, it's just the addition of xubuntu-desktop to ubuntu20:55
asacmdke: the other - in some way better - way would be to look for files that are ubuntu/xubuntu specific20:55
asaclike: "if ubuntu-docs files are there use them", "if xubuntu-docs files are there use those", etc.20:56
mdkemaybe having ubufox / xubufox alternative packages is the easiest solution20:56
mdkeor then again, maybe keeping the alternatives :)20:57
mdkeasac: the website team has recently been discussing some changes to the start page. newz mentioned that he thought that they wanted the offline page to be more like an error message, customised, which tells the user that they are offline and points them towards documentation to get online20:58
[reed]"This EULA business has little to do with trademarks and everything to do20:58
[reed]with the Mozilla Corporation trying to assert power. Think about the20:58
[reed]timing, Chrome hits the street and the next thing you know Moz Corp is20:58
[reed]trying to strongarm Ubuntu (and others) into making it very clear to20:58
[reed]users that they are using Firefox. Not only that, but Moz Corp asserts20:58
[reed]that power when we have the least possible choice about whether to20:58
mdkeasac: if they go that way, could that be something which is provided by ubufox or by a patch to firefox? if so, that's probably going to influence which solution we choose20:59
asac[reed]: yeah. comments are fun ;)21:01
asacmdke: well. i think it shouldnt matter for the ubuntu-docs package21:03
asacmdke: imo the ubuntu-docs package should just go ahead and focus on cleaning up the alternatives and untangling this situation21:04
asacthe fix should then come through ubufox or xubufox21:04
asaci think xubufox would be better though21:04
mdkeasac: well, it matters because if the offline page can be provided by firefox, I can remove the startpages from ubuntu-docs as well as the alternatives :)21:04
asacmdke: hmm. didnt know that you want to put the offline pages into firefox21:05
mdkeasac: it's a new idea which we're exploring21:05
asacmdke: i dont think that its a good decision21:05
mdkeasac: see the second half of this - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-website/2008-September/000386.html21:05
asacmdke: the ubuntu-docs team should be able to push out their releases21:05
asacotherwise you would need to go through me ... which is at best a bottleneck21:06
mdkeasac: no, the ubuntu-docs team would then have nothing to do with the startpage afterwards.21:06
asacmdke: who would maintain those pages? I dont think that the mozillateam can do that without building our own translation community - which i would rather not would like to do21:06
mdkeasac: the idea is that the page would just be a tweaked version of the existing "Page Load Error" message, and that translations of any changed strings would be done in firefox or ubufox as with other Ubuntu changed strings21:08
mdkeasac: but obviously, if you think that is problematic, we can rethink21:08
asacso the offline page would practically go away completely?21:09
asacmdke: hmm21:09
asacmdke: i think it would work to do that in ubufox21:09
asace.g. just make the text/page a translatable resource21:09
mdkeasac: how is ubufox currently translated? I've just noticed that it's not available here - https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/ubufox21:10
asacbut then would either get support to translate the strings or enable ubufox in launchpad for translations21:10
asaci have no experience. but would there be enough time to translate that in launchpad in this cycle?21:10
mdkeI'd assumed that ubufox already used launchpad, my bad21:10
asacmdke: actually its supposed to use that21:10
mdkeyeah, translations won't be an issue, the translators are just getting started now :)21:10
asacmdke: and it probably would work.21:11
asacits just that i didnt look into it this cycle yet. and we have currently a grave bug in the po2xpi transformer script that i have to fix to get valid firefox translations again21:11
mdkewell, we could do a compromise21:12
mdkeremove the alternatives this cycle, move the startpage next cycle21:12
asacmdke: how would the page be done? a "general" html template and then just keys mapped to pure text (e.g. unformatted) ?21:12
mdkeasac: I don't know - do you know how the current Page Load Error message is done?21:12
mdkein theory we could just patch that message21:13
asaci can look21:13
asacmdke: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/locales/en-US/chrome/netError.dtd21:21
asacand some are redefined in firefox:21:21
asac(redefined == overrides)21:22
asacso its "one" translatable string with all the html formatting21:22
[reed]asac / jcastro / fta: http://air.mozilla.com/21:25
jcastro[reed]: I hear you!21:29
asac[reed]: ffox crashed ;)21:29
ftawatching, is that really live ?21:30
asac[reed]: all because you ddint test that flash film with gnash ;)21:30
[reed]fta: yes, it's live21:31
jcastro[reed]: do you guys typically have these kind of meetings, or is this a special thing?21:34
[reed]jcastro: every Monday21:34
jcastroah neat21:34
asacif i would have working sound it would be more efficient ,)21:34
asacoh ... my headset is plugged in :-P21:35
mdkeasac: ok, so we would probably want to customise the connectionFailure one21:35
mdkeasac: or netOffline21:35
jcastro[reed]: that's real cool, thanks for the link21:37
[reed]jcastro: we're _very_ open... pretty much all our discussions and meetings are held publicly ;)21:37
jcastrothat's cool21:38
asacmdke: oh. well. i would like to change the defaults21:39
asacmdke: we should introduce a special page in that style for our specific problem21:40
mdkeasac: ok, that makes sense21:40
asacmdke: why do you want to display an error page at all?21:40
asacmdke: and not an offline page.21:40
asacmdke: i mean if we are ok with an error page, then we dont need to do this online/offline business at all ;)21:41
mdkeasac: well, the distinction is just a semantic one :)21:41
mdketo quote newz from that email I posted earlier -21:41
mdkeThe whole point is to clearly indicate to21:41
mdke> people that they are off-line and the current page looks like a normal21:41
mdke> web-page which mis-communicates a bit.21:41
asac[reed]: when will todays session be in the archive?21:41
[reed]asac: after it's over21:41
asacmdke: what content do you plan to add to that "error" page?21:44
asacmdke: e.g. when you look at the netError.dtd thing ... what would you change there?21:44
mdkeasac: i don't think the web team has necessarily thought it through. But i think the plan would be to add at least a link/launcher to the yelp document for connecting to the internet21:44
mdkeasac: anyway, it looks like this might all be a bit too ambitious for intrepid, maybe we should just focus on removing the alternatives and think about this for next cycle, what do you think?21:45
[reed]two meetings down, one more to go21:46
Volansmdke: but removing the alternatives means that in Intrepid the offline Start Page will be missed?21:46
mdkeVolans: no, just that the packaging will be simpler21:46
asacmdke: do you need more info to figure out what the ubuntu-docs teams actually wants?21:47
ftaasac, yesterday, i prepared xul 1.9.1a2, it's ready, expect for the previous 1.9 unclosed changelog.21:48
mdkeasac: well, it's the website team really. But I'd like to have an indication of what is achievable in time for intrepid, yeah21:48
asacmdke: well. you should really define what you want. most things should be possible if we know what we want quickly22:09
asacfta: cant you just merge both changelogs?22:10
ftaasac, http://paste.ubuntu.com/47263/22:11
Volansasac: firefox already handle yelp link for default, right?22:11
asacfta: isnt released in .head?22:12
asacor did i forget to push that?22:13
ftanot 0ubuntu222:13
ftaonce it is, my problem with 1.9.1 is solved22:13
asacfta: ok. i think the restart problem is still not 100% accurate22:14
asacI'll look in that tomorrow22:14
[reed]asac / jcastro: our internal MoCo meeting talked about this issue for over 35 min. ;)22:30
asac[reed]: thanks22:39
jcastro[reed]: are there public notes for the public part on a wiki somewhere?22:43
[reed]jcastro: just what's on https://wiki.mozilla.org/WeeklyUpdates/2008-09-15 and then the video podcast22:43
jcastro[reed]: where can I find the archive at?22:47
[reed]http://air.mozilla.com/ Click the "Menu" button in the player, then "Browse on-demand library, open the Weekly status updates folder, and click on this week's meeting.22:51
[reed]jcastro: ^22:51
asacfta: so is there BUILD4 tag?22:57
[reed]Firefox 3.0.2?22:58
[reed]we're on build522:58
asac[reed]: oh ;)23:04
ftaasac, Sep 06 12:29:28 <fta>        FIREFOX_3_0_2_BUILD523:07
asacfta: ok. thanks23:07
[reed]there's even talk of a build623:08
[reed]but nothing definite yet23:09
asac[reed]: quite a hairy QA cycle isnt it?23:10
fta[reed], btw, what was that UPDATE_PACKAGING_R5 tag last week ?23:10
[reed]fta: dunno23:11
[reed]asac: yeah :(23:11
asac[reed]: were those regressions from bug fixes or security updates?23:11
[reed]both, maybe? at least bug fixes23:12
asac[reed]: you remember when build 1 was tagged? so i can look into changes in bonsai?23:13
[reed]asac: sorry, no...23:13
ftaAug 28, before 8:00am23:14
asacfta: do you still have in your backlog when you posted FIREFOX_3_0_2_BUILD3 ?23:14
ftaAug 30 01:12:57 <fta>        FIREFOX_3_0_2_BUILD323:14
asacok thanks23:14
asacah ok. i was confused by the amount of commits ;)23:15
ftaaug 30, 2pm23:15
asacthose are camino and all kind of other stuff though23:16
asac[reed]: do you know if i can exclude directories in bonsai?23:16
asacor can i just include specific ones?23:16
[reed]no, but you can include directories23:16
[reed]I think23:16
asac[reed]: the mozilla/security/nss commits are probably just noise as that is HEAD (which isnt the stable branch?)?23:19
asac[reed]: oh. is there a mini-branch or something?23:23
asaci see one cmmit is with a=
ftano mini branch that i can see23:25
ftaasac, ^^23:26
asac1.8 branches appear to have no regressions at least23:28
asacKamping_Kaiser: bug 247157 ... why is the devscript part needed?23:32
ubottuLaunchpad bug 247157 in ubuntu-dev-tools "dget/dgetlp should have ca-certificates in their Recommends field." [Wishlist,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/24715723:32
asacKamping_Kaiser: also. isnt there a fix for the broken "--no-check-certificate"23:39
[reed]anybody use client certs here?23:47
asac[reed]: i did for a private project. but not in webbrowser no23:58

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!