[00:00] asac, how/where did this happen? [00:02] just 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] pwnguin: hey its weekend [00:02] have better things to do than reading bugmail ;) [00:03] fta: the requirement to display EULA? [00:04] i mean, is that a change you did that i missed ? [00:04] lol, https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656/comments/27 [00:04] Launchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed] [00:04] interesting idea [00:06] fta: why would it be irrelevant? [00:07] ? did I say irrelevant anywhere ? [00:07] the bug title does [00:07] i'm just trying to understand if it's a wanted change, or a bug [00:08] the firstrun page? [00:08] the eula thing [00:08] thats a requirement we got from mozilla ... like the bug says [00:08] oh [00:08] but the comment is really interesting [00:09] oh, it's the 1st page, not the eula UI ? [00:09] unfortunately doesnt work for non-admin users [00:09] fta: right [00:09] it's in ubufox ? [00:09] fta: yeah [00:09] ok, that's why i didn't see it [00:11] fta: its unsure what has to happen with the "normal" firefox package [00:19] asac: Parts of the EULA are irrelevant and parts are complete crap. [00:20] wgrant: i think the wording and presentation can be improved [00:21] wgrant: there is a bit confusion here i think [00:22] I hope so. [00:22] 1. we display these terms on firstrun [00:22] 2. user technically doesnt need to accept those terms in order to use the browser [00:23] User does. [00:23] Well, the EULA says so. [00:23] 3. from what i understand those terms would be effective even without displaying the EULA [00:23] How? [00:23] wgrant: where does the eula say so? [00:24] "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE MOZILLA FIREFOX BROWSER. " [00:26] wgrant: yes i think thats a problematic thing [00:27] There's no point in a EULA if I can use the browser without agreeing to it. [00:30] this bug and discussion will surely trigger some thoughts. so lets see. [00:30] Indeed, but it will become rather too large to read. [00:30] most likely all parties are open to ideas on how to better do it [00:31] Doesn't sound like Mozilla is. [00:31] Well. [00:31] from what i understood they are bound by other agreements to display something [00:32] Then those other agreements need to be fixed. [00:32] but i have no details [00:32] agreed [00:32] A stunningly large number of people seem to be missing the fact that I used allcaps in the description because the EULA did :( [00:33] fighting fire with fire usually doesnt contribute to effective discussions [00:33] Perhaps not. [00:33] but yeah [00:34] But presenting all users with a lot of awful allcaps doesn't contribute to an effective first impression. [00:35] How does abrowser not violate the EULA? [00:36] It says I'm not allowed to remove or alter the branding. [00:36] while 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 page [00:36] But I can't alter the code without removing the branding. [00:36] Ia am trapped. [00:36] wgrant: it also states (iirc) that firefox is all opensource and you can change what you want [00:36] wgrant: that paragraphs just means that you are not allowed to distribute that build as firefox with a different branding [00:37] No, it says that the source for portions of Firefox may be available. [00:38] asac: Is abrowser not that same build but with different branding? [00:38] It's a badly written license in the first place, and imposing conditions on users goes against the F/OSS principles [00:38] http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox-en.html [00:38] wgrant: abrowser isnt mozilla firefox anymore ... thus its not bound [00:39] No. [00:39] The license states that the executable is the Product. [00:39] thats strange [00:39] I cannot remove branding from the Product. [00:39] "The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the “Product”)" [00:39] "You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product." [00:40] I'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 stuffs [00:41] Volans: I didn't ever see a FF2 EULA. [00:41] http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/ [00:41] I wasn't advised that I had to agree to it. [00:41] seems that also FF1.5 have one [00:41] I'm discovering it now [00:42] Things in main shouldn't have use restrictions. [00:42] If they don't have use restrictions, they don't need EULA. [00:42] +s [00:42] Thus anything that needs a EULA shouldn't be in main. [00:42] The license was, I think, originally intended for Windows distribution where people were modifying the Firefox branding slightly [00:43] It is clearly intended for the Windows distribution. [00:43] As it refers to the installer. [00:44] wgrant: also a binary deb package is an "installer" ;) [00:44] Volans: Yes, but it lacks elements referred to by the EULA. [00:45] Installing the Firefox deb doesn't ask me to install additional third-party software. [00:45] wgrant: 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] right [00:45] IntuitiveNipple: It seems that way. [00:46] And 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] If 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. [00:47] well. so what do you want to do about the anti-phishing thing? [00:47] turn it off? so it doesnt need to be displayed? [00:47] The export term for example, is non-sensicle since many users won't get it originally from the USA anyhow. [00:48] asac: What does that have to do with anything? [00:48] The only reference to it in the EULA seems to be that it might not be 100% accurate. [00:48] I think Canonical legal reps need to to talk to Mozilla about this, point out the inconsistencies [00:48] Doesn't the GPL's warranty disclaimer do that? [00:49] asac: 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 user [00:49] What other F/OSS has a provision to terminate the end-user's right to use? [00:49] so I think is not due to that part of the EULA but for political reasons [00:49] IntuitiveNipple: I was thinking about that. I think that only distribution can be terminated by the GPL, not use. [00:49] read very carefully the 3. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS paragraph [00:49] Use termination seems a bit wrong. [00:50] taking in mind what is the "Prodict" -> "The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product")" [00:50] wgrant: 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] IntuitiveNipple: It's tri-licensed. [00:50] wgrant: It's damned confusing is what it is! [00:51] Mozilla seems to like to do that. [00:51] Volans: What are you pointing out? [00:52] IntuitiveNipple: 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] I presume. [00:52] I'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] Then why the fsck is it there? [00:52] It doesn't grant any additional rights. [00:53] but just after that it say that you can not remove etc... [00:53] And it says it doesn't restrict the rights. [00:53] So it does nothing. [00:53] but 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] s/shoe/show/ [00:54] Because Mozilla Corp is trying to be annoying, perhaps. [00:54] 130 comments... [00:54] i think the main point why we need to display it are the anti-phishing terms [00:54] asac: Which paragraph? [00:55] 5? [00:55] 5. WEBSITE INFORMATION SERVICES [00:55] 5 [00:55] yes [00:55] Does 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] no ... and thats why the idea to display that as a firstrun page came up [00:56] e.g. the user doesnt need to agree to be bound [00:56] But it says I do! [00:56] It explicitly says that I must not use the browser unless I agree. [00:56] yes. thats a bug in the EULA text imo. imo it shouldnt be called EULA [00:56] asac: you think so because you know it, or you imagine because is the only difference with the old EULA? [00:56] and just state the terms that more like a "reminder" [00:57] Why do I need a > 1000 word EULA to state those 46 words which are overly verbose anyway? [00:57] thats the point and i am sure that we will provide feedback to mozilla based on what we got ;) [00:58] Why was this change made without telling anybody? [00:58] And without arguing this first? [00:58] mainly because of timing [00:58] Anyway, I must move to another lecture theatre. I shall return in a few minutes. [00:59] I 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] the code existed for quite some time in bzr. [01:00] Volans: well. this needs a decision ;) [01:00] in Ubuntu or in Mozilla? [01:01] on both sides [01:01] I think that asking directly and quickly Mozilla can lead to a solution [01:01] Volans: we are constantly talking with them. [01:01] still not a single commit in g chrome about linux or mac... [01:01] I'm sure [01:01] looks like it's in another branch [01:03] fta: maybe "behind" the wall ;) [01:03] we 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 found [01:03] (sorry, in the night my english crash) [01:04] but I hope that a better solution can be found ;) [01:04] If the only reason for the license is protecting the Firefox trademark and brand images, all is needed is to replace those. [01:04] the fundamental point is why Mozilla want to show this EULA [01:04] IntuitiveNipple: is what abrowser is... firefoxx without branding [01:05] asac: So I am required to monitor every package VCS in order to complain that something wasn't discussed publicly? [01:05] wgrant: no [01:05] you can always complain that something wasnt discussed [01:06] as i said it was a timing [01:06] Well, 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 :) [01:08] asac: as I know in the source code of Firefox there aren't the brand images and logos, right? [01:08] Volans: they are in the other-licenses/ folder [01:10] ok, and we ship this all toghether in binary packages in main, right? [01:11] It would seem to be trivial to take the branding out of the source and banish it to restricted. [01:11] Volans: now the marks and images are ni the -branding packages [01:11] so we can do whtever we want [01:11] was exactly what I'm wondering [01:11] wgrant: the source isnt the problem (except for the non-free images - which is a different issue afaict) [01:11] ship the brand in a separate package in multiverse or restricted [01:11] asac: Right, the non-free images. [01:11] and the clean browser, so abrowser, in main [01:12] wgrant: thats one reason why the branding split was a good thing to do [01:12] It's nice being able to switch the branding just by installing another package. [01:12] we could push the -branding binaries into restricted/multiverse [01:12] this IS the solution IMHO [01:12] wgrant: you can now: sudo apt-get install abrowser -> free ; sudo apt-get install firefox -> trademark [01:13] asac: That's what I did a couple of days ago. Excellent work. [01:13] But abrowser still shows the EULA. [01:13] maybe 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] wgrant: yes. thats a bug imo [01:13] hang-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] And the real solution is to get Mozilla to be less tupid. [01:14] asac: but the firefox package is all firefox or only the brand part? [01:14] well. 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 them [01:14] asac: Which package actually contains the binaries? [01:14] wgrant: firefox-3.0 ... but package names cannot be covered by trademarks as far as its understood [01:14] asac: 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. [01:15] wgrant: the branding bits are in firefox-3.0-branding and abrowser-3.0-branding [01:15] Aha. [01:15] Does the world end if I remove both? [01:15] wgrant: thats your opinion. my opinion is that even mozilla can change ;) [01:15] wgrant: if you remove both branidng packages firefox-3.0 will be remove doo [01:15] asac: They've just been getting worse. I can't see them turning, but yes that is just my opinion. [01:15] too [01:15] asac: Right, good. [01:16] asac: you can't do the thing in a manner that abrowser + firefox-3.0-branding packages is the same as installing FF3? [01:16] firefox-3.0 Depends: firefox-3.0-branding | abrowser-3.0-branding [01:16] firefox Depends: firefox-3.0, firefox-3.0-branding [01:16] why have both? [01:16] abrowser Depedns: firefox-3.0, abrowser-3.0-branding [01:16] Volans: abrowser and firefox seem to conflict. [01:16] Volans: There's no point having both. [01:16] If you install one, the other is removed. [01:17] abrowser is the meta package tracking the latest abrowser [01:17] firefox the same for firefox [01:17] ;) [01:17] wgrant: no I mean both in the archive,sorry [01:17] Volans: I still don't see what you mean. [01:17] wgrant: i think he also wants abrowser-3.0 [01:17] Ah. [01:18] I try to explain myself [01:18] and if you install abrowser-3.0 + firefox-3.0-branding [01:18] you get firefox ;) [01:18] yep! [01:18] I think it would be good if Mozilla would name the Firefox codebase something else, like Chrome vs Chromium. [01:18] Volans: i think that doesnt really give you much benefit [01:18] you can avoid a duplicate in the archives [01:18] at some point we could rename firefox-3.0 to abrowser-3.0-base [01:18] or something [01:18] and make firefox use that [01:18] actually you have abrowserXX and firefoxXX that are practically the same thing, right? [01:18] Or firefox-core or something. [01:18] but for now i didnt bother to rename firefox-3.0 [01:19] ok [01:19] clear! [01:19] thatmozillabrowserthatshallnotbenamed-3.0-core [01:19] wgrant: yeah. but firefox-core would again have firefox in the name [01:19] and abrowser-core would have abrowser in the name [01:19] so we would need a third name ;) [01:19] abrowser seems to be having a name crisis. [01:19] abrowser, A Web Browser, Web Browser. [01:20] like: some-browser-base-3.0 ;) [01:20] firejackalope-base :) [01:20] or just browser-base-version [01:20] but, that's too generic [01:21] I agree with the archive-admin-forced renaming of the package. [01:21] we had webbrowser as name ... but that wasnt allowed in by archive admins [01:21] But it is a bit inconsistent. [01:21] i guess they wont allow browser-base in ;) [01:21] asac, yeah :) [01:21] wgrant: stop being here but not there? :-) [01:21] wgrant: what is inconsistent? [01:21] what 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? [01:22] asac: abrowser is named abrowser, A Web Browser and Web Browser in various places. [01:22] Nafallo: I have no XMPP client on this X terminal. [01:22] And no free powerpoint for my laptop. [01:22] wgrant: FAIL [01:22] Solaris 9 fail. [01:22] wgrant: those are bugs then [01:23] wgrant: well. abrowser is the package name. not sure if we want that as the name in the UI [01:23] asac: Probably not. [01:23] But the .desktop has "A Web Browser" [01:23] yes. maybe that should be just Web Browser [01:24] asac: my proposal is too hard (politically speaking)? [01:24] yes, "Web Browser" can be a good solution IMO [01:24] Volans: well. this all depends on what mozilla does [01:25] We should await response from our not-so-benevolent Canonical and Mozilla overlords, I suspect. [01:25] you can use in the default installation a package from restricted/multiverse? [01:25] my personal opinion is that whatever happens we should send a strong signal, but dont be too aggressive [01:25] I'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] also A Web Browser is unbranded, but it's still not so generic as Web Browser only :) [01:25] asac: Right. [01:25] this whole thing probably will cause more coverage and noise. so give both parties a bit time to define what they want and can accept [01:26] Precisely. [01:27] sure, just keep in mind also this possibility :) (the Start Page part is fundamental to be not too aggressive) [01:35] Hmm, I see we're slashdotted. [01:35] yes, I have put the link before [01:39] I wonder how long it will be until LP collapses. [01:39] * Hobbsee has warned them. [01:39] so, lifeless has seen it. [02:08] unfortunately, bugmail is not slashdot, with ratings and moderation and parenting [02:10] 145 comments so far... [02:11] I think that if also with abrowser the EULA Is shown the bug can be filled also for abrowser package. [02:11] does it? [02:11] someone before tell this, wait a second [02:12] just test it. install it, make a new user [02:12] I'm not running intrepid now [02:12] and it's very late for me... time to go to sleep... [02:12] see you tomorrow, good night [02:12] and "good" EULA :) [02:17] pwnguin, abrowser shows it. [02:18] asac, 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) [02:19] weird... I also got two empty pages with uri chrome://ubufox/content/startpage.html [02:28] <[reed]> wow, I just saw bug 269656 [02:28] <[reed]> that's a mess [02:28] Launchpad bug 269656 in firefox-3.0 "AN IRRELEVANT LICENSE IS PRESENTED TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE ON STARTUP" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/269656 [02:37] <[reed]> so many crazy comments [02:38] <[reed]> from people who have no idea what they're saying ;) === asac_ is now known as asac [03:56] <[reed]> asac: ping? [08:10] asac: 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? [09:08] bug 256428 [09:08] Launchpad bug 256428 in thunderbird "Lightning extension will not properly display calendar" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/256428 [09:15] THUNDERBIRD_2_0_0_17_BUILD1 === asac_ is now known as asac [09:48] finally i fixed X [09:50] oh shit there was a meeting yesterday? [09:56] gnomefreak: yeah. [09:57] sorry forgot about it :( [09:59] asac: did you guys come up with anything for the topics (atleast the ones i see on agenda) [10:00] !logs [10:00] Official channel logs can be found at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ - For LoCo channels, http://logs.ubuntu-eu.org/freenode/ [10:06] gnomefreak: look at log. i will write minutes later today [10:06] i couldnt find them [10:07] i tried 13 14 and 15th [10:07] since they are in UTC time last i heard [10:08] gnomefreak: 19h [10:08] err [10:08] 18h UTC [10:08] was the time [10:08] gnomefreak: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/09/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html [10:08] the log basically starts wiuth out meeting [10:08] i used txt [10:09] shouldnt matter [10:09] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/09/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt [10:09] everyghing that happend yesterday is our meeting [10:10] thanks ill read it [10:13] btw 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 page [10:15] if the extension is build for support on ff3 you dont need to add |abrowser as they still work in abrowser [10:31] afaik 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 it [10:32] and im not sure how FFE works [10:39] gnomefreak: we need abrowser because firefox package wont be installed when abrowser is [10:39] its nothing we need to fix in code, just a minor depends tweaking [10:40] asac: i know im using abrowser with the extensions and they work fine [10:40] i have abrowser installed [10:40] gnomefreak: it might be that we removed the firefox depends from the extensions [10:40] shouldnt since ff3 stays on system [10:40] but there are definitly a few left that have that [10:40] gnomefreak: some depend on firefox-3.0 [10:40] but some also depend on firefox [10:41] those that depend on firefox either needs firefox dropped from depends or get | abrowser [10:42] i 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 it [10:42] evening blokes [10:42] gnomefreak: i think new extensions shouldnt depend on anything. Recommends would be good [10:42] IMHO keep both incase people dont install abrower [10:42] hi Kamping_Kaiser [10:43] should things recomend when apt does recomends by default now? [10:43] asac: they should depend on something or its likely not gonna work [10:43] Kamping_Kaiser: not sure. maybe suggests then [10:43] but recommends wont hurt [10:43] Kamping_Kaiser: that makes recommends not needed in INtrepid but hardy and lower should still use it [10:43] gnomefreak, valid point [10:43] imo its what we want. if users install an extension they get everything they need to use it [10:44] asac: than we dont need suggests since there isnt a need for it with extensions [10:44] gnomefreak: yes. i am find with depends but then we have to depends on everything ;) [10:44] e.g. firefox | iceweasel | abrowser [10:44] asac: right sort of [10:45] last i heard we dont want iceweasle as a dep since we dont have it [10:45] gnomefreak: however, you can also use the extensions without anything installed [10:45] you can download firefox from upstream [10:45] and link the packaged extension directory tot he downloaded firefox extensions/ dir [10:45] i had at least one inquiry in the past about that [10:45] e.g. he wanted to use enigmail i think, but didnt want to be required to use it with the packaged tbird [10:47] so we want to keep iceweaesl even though we dont support it? [10:47] i am not hard about it [10:47] but i think in the long run we want to push our extensions to debian too [10:48] so keeping it wont hurt [10:48] we can if needed. i have one im gonna start work on for debian i just havent gotten to fix it yet [10:48] can it depend on x-www-browser or similar? [10:49] but i guess that would encompas non-firefoxy browsers [10:49] im thinking we cant do that since an extension doesnt always support other browsers [10:50] im sure we can add support to some but would rather keep it less general but i dont seee that big of an issue with it [10:51] asac: i will fix firegpg but i highly doubt it will make Intrepid due to FF [10:54] eh maybe ill hit debians bug this week or next week [10:59] gnomefreak: we can grant our own FF exceptions [10:59] Kamping_Kaiser: unfortunately not [10:59] asac: oh [10:59] Kamping_Kaiser: also depend on x-www-browser would probably ned to read ffox-compatible-xul-browser ;) [10:59] hehe. bit long really [11:00] Kamping_Kaiser: right. but x-www-browser is too broad. we could also just recommend then [11:00] yeah. [11:02] should we remove firefox-2 from deps? [11:03] eh ill leave it incase people go back to -2 from upstream [11:03] gnomefreak: yes. thats the ida [11:03] oh ok [11:03] we will remove firefox-2 ... as of mozillateam meeting decision [11:03] and all its rdepends [11:04] if there is an extension that only supports ffox 2 we should see if we can fix that by upgrading [11:04] otherwise it needs to be removed too [11:04] ok sounds good [11:23] asac: firegpg is all fixed i will finish on chatzilla hopfully today [11:38] why the hell wont bzr bd --merge --dont-purge --export-upstream=/home/gnomefreak/package/package.upstream/ work [11:42] ah much better :) [11:48] where would i find the instructions on -med-unpack? [11:51] gnomefreak: there are no instructions yet. they should go to the wiki though [11:51] gnomefreak: here is how it works: [11:51] med-xpi-unpack will unpack the .xpi in a normalized fashion [11:51] sh build.sh then just needs to do med-xpi-pack [11:51] and all is fine [11:52] wll after doing that uncommenting sh build.sh in rules fails as always [11:52] s/wll/well [11:53] gnomefreak: what is in build.sh exactly? [11:53] MOZ_XPI_BUILD_COMMAND = sh build.sh [11:54] error isnt helpful IMHO [11:54] mkdir -p "." [11:54] sh build.sh [11:54] sh: Can't open build.sh [11:54] make: *** [build/chatzilla] Error 2 [11:54] dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 [11:54] bzr: ERROR: The build failed. [11:54] thats with sh build.sh uncommented [11:56] commenting it works [11:56] commenting it out [11:56]