[00:01] hmm [00:02] most likely a good topic to ask during platform/foundations team meeting tomorrow ;) [00:02] or well ... not ask, but reraise that this still isnt fixed [00:02] ? [00:03] asac, which topic ? [00:04] lcd [00:05] the bug above is fixed, i'm trying to fix fontconfig as apparently, the problem is there, not in cairo [00:06] well, cairo assigned a different value compared to our patch so we need to tweak fontconfig to restore our old behavior, or rewrite the font pref UI [00:08] fta: yes. fontconfig is supposed to get better support for upstream dropped patches [00:10] fta@ix:~ $ lsof -np 2665 | grep -c /tmp/jemalloc [00:10] 215 [00:11] a few sec after a restart [00:12] asac, is it me or is this ugly: http://paste.ubuntu.com/47606/ [00:13] i mean, patches *and* direct in-source changes [00:14] morning all [00:14] kgoetz: night [00:15] hah. [00:23] kgoetz: this guy is ridiculous [00:24] i ate tons of bits yesterday to finally upload a iceowl which fixes all outstanding RC things [00:24] and had a glitch in a maintainer script [00:24] one minute later someone posts a debdiff for the trivial fix and says "i will NMU this ..." [00:24] asac: was iceowl one of the packages hit by the buidd bug? [00:24] yeah [00:24] i ate tons of uploads yesterday [00:25] asac: ouch, thats a bit ... yeah. pity theres only /so much/ smacking you can do [00:25] i admit that the package is in bad state ... but that is just provocation. especially since i am always in #debian-devel [00:25] well. i thought it was a problem on my side [00:25] first upload failed [00:25] second upload aborted (dcut yay) [00:25] third upload claimed that the bits are already there [00:26] dcut uploaded again [00:26] (failed because there were no bits) [00:26] bumped version to 0.8-5;) [00:26] and everytime uploading all the heavyweight mozilla bits ;) [00:26] (including binaries of course) [00:27] * kgoetz should check if 0.8-5 changelog has a rude comment about buildds in it ;) [00:28] hehe [00:28] no [00:28] i didnt [00:28] i still thought it was all my fault [00:28] oh right [00:28] first upload aborted in the middle of the upload [00:28] then dcut [00:28] then i uploaded with "sid" as distribution ;) [00:28] which apparently broke the queue :) [00:28] at least it failed like that upload broke the queue ;) [00:29] s/failed/feeled/ [00:30] hehehehe -> < asac> which apparently broke the queue :) [00:30] i'm sure i'm in here just for the stories ;) [00:30] asac: i'm starting to think i should upgrade to testing/sid now. [00:31] hehe [00:31] i wish i still had a debian install :) ... i am breathing through chroots until i find time to resurrect my system ;) [00:32] do you hae hardware to put the install on, or do you vm it? [00:33] atm i'm the other way around - i only have etch, everyware, and i do any ubuntu bits in chroots. [00:33] kgoetz: i want to put it on real hardware. but i also have a VM ... which is broken since i upgraded to intrepid [00:33] s/ubuntu/ubuntu and gnewsense/ [00:33] not sure if i can ever resurrect that [00:34] you upgraded the host, and the vm died? thats a bit ... nasty [00:35] yeah. the host doesnt have a compatible module anymore [00:35] at least even when i build that with module-assistant and load it [00:35] it still complains about that [00:35] most likely they just broken something [00:35] i should actually file a bug about that [00:38] just NMU it :p [00:39] he [00:39] its in ubuntu [00:39] or is vm host the vm system [00:39] then i mixed that up [00:39] my bug is: "i cannot start debian in VM anymore" ;) [00:39] because VM cannot start anything ;) [00:39] hehehe [00:40] at least nothing that was setup before [00:41] * kgoetz afk - works just found work for me to do :\ [00:48] oh dear [00:48] didnt know that the flashplugin-nonfree postinst is _such_ a mess [00:53] lcd issue fixed for me [00:53] :) [01:29] maybe not completely, filter is active now, but it's not as before, maybe cairo after all [01:30] maybe _before_ was wrong ;) [01:32] i was happy before, now, regular text looks good but bold text is blurry [03:37] Do I read Mitchell's blog correctly? They gave in? [08:36] <[reed]> wgrant: "gave in"? [08:36] <[reed]> such poor choice of wording [08:36] <[reed]> and wrong, too [08:38] <[reed]> just trying to do a more innovative method of explaining the terms/license as well as the service-specific rights/agreements [08:39] I'm not sure I'd call that innovation. [08:39] <[reed]> there's more to come [08:40] Displaying the EULA was innovative within the FLOSS world. [08:41] <[reed]> there's nothing wrong with the EULA itself if you actually read it [08:41] WHAT DID YOU SAY? [08:41] THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, RIGHT. [08:41] <[reed]> all these complaints about the EULA making Firefox non-free are silly [08:41] <[reed]> and please stop shouting [08:42] [reed]: is there a link to the EULA for Mozilla? [08:42] I never asserted it was non-free. [08:42] <[reed]> gnomefreak: sure, www.mozilla.com/legal/eula/ [08:42] The EULA shouts at me, I'll shout at people who says the EULA is fine. [08:42] <[reed]> wgrant: yeah, well, the HTML version of the EULA uses bold [08:42] It's not non-free, but it's not fine. [08:42] <[reed]> instead of all caps [08:43] [reed]: thanks, and i dont condicer it free software i think its more "restricted" than "free" [08:43] <[reed]> not sure why or how Canonical got their copy [08:43] <[reed]> of the EULA they used [08:43] gnomefreak: It's certainly leaning towards restricted. [08:43] <[reed]> since that's clearly not the right one for HTML [08:43] <[reed]> (I should know... I put those EULA pages together myself) ;) [08:43] I daresay that's not something to admit to. [08:45] <[reed]> http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox3-en.html <-- that's probably what Canonical should have used [08:45] <[reed]> anyway, EULA is being changed [08:45] * gnomefreak waits to read it but as i understand it is about not being able to use branding if source is modified [08:45] <[reed]> well [08:45] <[reed]> gnomefreak: correct [08:45] <[reed]> it's mostly about trademarks, normal MPL stuff, and other services (like safe browsing) [08:45] Why do our users need to see that? [08:45] [reed]: than what is the issue, doesnt MPL pretty much state that? [08:45] Normal MPL stuff doesn't need to be there. [08:46] The other services are legitimate issues. [08:46] They do need to be displayed somewhere. [08:46] <[reed]> MPL doesn't mention the trademark stuff either (as far as how it's being used here) [08:46] <[reed]> afaik, that is... been a little while since I read the entire MPL [08:46] <[reed]> IANAL :) [08:47] <[reed]> wgrant: users need to be made aware of their rights (and non-rights, I guess) [08:47] If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser. [08:48] [reed]: Trademarks don't affect people who don't modify, do they? [08:48] that really doesnt work for Ubuntu [08:48] And people who modify should be looking further than the start page. [08:48] gnomefreak: Lies! It's FINE! FINE I TELL YOU! [08:49] wgrant: in Ubuntu you install firefox than first launch it gives you the EULA [08:49] oos [08:49] [reed]: ^^^ [08:49] <[reed]> wgrant: if you are using the browser branded "Firefox" with unmodified source, you don't have to worry about the trademark, as you're not breaking any laws [08:49] [reed]: Right. [08:49] gnomefreak: s/Ubuntu/Ubuntu 8.10 alpha/ [08:50] <[reed]> wgrant: people still need to be made aware, though, as we take our trademark seriously [08:50] So why do our users need to be tortured with the legalese if they're not going to be affected even by this overly-restrictive trademark enforcement? [08:50] <[reed]> they are affected... it means they can't modify the source and redist it as Firefox [08:50] dholbert: its not just intrepid [08:51] its FF3 not Ubuntu [08:51] [reed]: But I can't distribute my modified version without agreeing to the MPL and other legalise. [08:51] s/legalise/legalese/ [08:51] So it should be presented there. [08:51] Not elsewhere. [08:51] gnomefreak: If i understand correctly, it's specifically Intrepid's way of packaging FF3 [08:51] <[reed]> dholbert: not really [08:52] <[reed]> it's Canonical's custom extension [08:52] dholbert: its not Ubuntu its mozilla [08:52] gnomefreak: RE "not just intrepid" -- I'm running hardy right now, and if I make a new profile & run "firefox-3.0" in it, no EULA pops up [08:52] <[reed]> Canonical modified its "ubufox" to display the EULA in this way, as Firefox itself doesn't have the capabilities to display the EULA in a tab [08:52] [reed]: cant be ubuntu since other distros have smae thing and i saw it in my hardy install with ff3a4 [08:52] <[reed]> dholbert: yes, Ubuntu disabled the EULA [08:52] <[reed]> which was wrong [08:53] <[reed]> if you get rid of ubufox [08:53] <[reed]> it'll show it [08:53] <[reed]> I think [08:53] ah, interesting [08:53] <[reed]> gnomefreak: the EULA popup is very different from what happened with Intrepid's Firefox [08:53] <[reed]> they are two different display types of the EULA [08:53] Ooh, those evil Canonical people. Disabling a EULA which can legally be disabled. How dare they. [08:53] [reed]: maybe not show it but i would have to try it to be for sure [08:54] <[reed]> wgrant: it can't be legally disabled [08:54] <[reed]> not without disabling safe browsing, that is [08:54] [reed]: The code isn't released under the dreaded EULA, is it? [08:54] <[reed]> "the code"? [08:54] <[reed]> you mean Firefox source? [08:54] <[reed]> or safe browsing? [08:54] <[reed]> or what? [08:54] <[reed]> Firefox source is tri-licensed [08:55] <[reed]> MPL/GPL/LGPL [08:55] The Firefox source. [08:55] I'm quite aware. [08:55] None of those say that I can't remove the EULA. [08:55] <[reed]> if you are using a product called Firefox, you have to agree to the EULA [08:55] And we don't use the MoCo binaries. I hope. [08:56] So there is an arbitrary restriction that users of the trademark must present the EULA. Great. [08:56] <[reed]> you're not using the direct MoCo binaries, but Canonical is under agreement with Mozilla on the use of the Firefox trademark [08:56] <[reed]> etc. [08:56] <[reed]> wgrant: Things will get better soon, I promise you. :) [08:57] yup. this will all be pretty moot soon I hope [08:57] [reed]: Better how? [08:57] [reed], if I understood you correctly, the unbranded version has to show EULA too because of the safe browsing feature? [08:57] <[reed]> Jazzva: no, that was a bug, which has been fixed [08:58] [reed]: fixed as in safe browsing is disabled in unbranded versions, since they haven't agreed to EULA? [08:58] <[reed]> wgrant: A much more innovative way of dealing with the rights/non-rights that come with the Firefox name is coming. [08:58] [reed], ok, thanks :) [08:58] <[reed]> dholbert: no, safe browsing is still active, but the EULA isn't displayed [08:58] [reed]: how does that work legally then? [08:58] <[reed]> (I don't know how that works legally) [08:58] haha [08:58] <[reed]> lol [08:58] k [08:58] <[reed]> you can read the bug if it helps [08:59] <[reed]> mozilla bug 443918 [08:59] [reed]: I'm not sure I like the idea of calling new ways of imposing braindead restrictions innovativ. [08:59] Mozilla bug 443918 in General "Open-Source CVS version of FF forces me to accept proprietary, non-Open-Source EULA (license)" [Normal,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443918 [08:59] Jazzva: mostly just the branding if used branding if you change branding you have to change name of it as well [08:59] [reed], and what about this "it can't be legally disabled not without disabling safe browsing, that is"? [08:59] Jazzva: I just asked that :) we're not sure how that works legally [08:59] [reed]: how do you remember bugs [09:00] dholbert, ah. I missed it. Sorry, woke up few minutes ago :) [09:00] <[reed]> gnomefreak: I don't. I have a good memory for parts of the summary, and both my e-mail client and the awesome bar help me out a lot. [09:00] <[reed]> ;) [09:00] it should ask during install so you have choice to install it or use abrowser [09:00] [reed]: ah [09:00] cheater [09:01] gnomefreak: No, it shouldn't do that. It shouldn't need to do that. That is a compromise. [09:01] <[reed]> wgrant: again, please be patient. More information will come within the next few days that I think you will find sufficient. [09:01] <[reed]> :) [09:02] <[reed]> don't think of MoCo as some big corporate entity where everybody is a lawyer and that we all hate Linux, because that just isn't true [09:02] [reed]: It seems Mozilla Corporation felt it would be sufficient to impose lovely legalese on everyone. I don't think it likely that what MoCo suggests might be sufficient is. [09:02] <[reed]> wgrant: Canonical wasn't supposed to use that particular legalese that was used [09:03] <[reed]> that was an error (on somebody's part -- dunno if Canonical or MoCo) [09:03] <[reed]> a new EULA was being written [09:03] [reed]: Even the revised one isn't great. [09:03] <[reed]> yeah, well [09:03] <[reed]> a better idea is coming up shortly :) [09:03] wgrant: it gives user choice if they want to agree to it if they feel they dont want to they should beable to choose a browser they want instead. but installing ff than when first start you disagree to it firefox has some depends that are needed in Ubuntu (removing ff remove yelp and fried as well [09:04] gnomefreak: Yes, but that is a compromise. It shouldn't be necessary in the first place. [09:04] hi [09:05] Evening asac. [09:07] brb smoke but mozilla wont change it either we drop Mozilla(bad idea) or we should have choice during install either in d-i or during install of package if it really is ubufox that can be changed AFAIK if it is just Ubuntu. but i thought mozilla decided it should be shown. like i said removing firefox removes alot of needed packages (last i heard 6 or so) one eing ubuntu-desktop. if you have to reinstall *-desktop package than ff [09:07] brb smoke [09:07] * asac reading backlog [09:08] gnomefreak: No, I have no Firefox branding on my system. [09:08] I have ubuntu-desktop installed. [09:08] Anything that needs Firefox installed is a bug. [09:10] wgrant: its a bug that it gets displayed with 100%-free branding [09:11] <[reed]> asac: which has been fixed, as of today! :) [09:11] <[reed]> (and has absolutely nothing to do with the recent Ubuntu fiasco, for the conspiracy theorists out there) [09:11] asac: I'm aware; I filed it and cjwatson assigned it hours later. [09:12] <[reed]> wgrant: Canonical didn't fix it... [09:12] <[reed]> we fixed it [09:12] <[reed]> upstream [09:13] [reed]: I didn't debate that. I just said that I filed the bug in Ubuntu and it was assigned by a god some hours later, thus proving that it was actually a bug. [09:13] ill cheaking but i thought abrowser help>about still lists it as Mozilla Firefoxbut cheaking [09:13] nevermind [09:13] gnomefreak: It mentions the Firefox trademarks as being trademarks, but it doesn't use the Firefox logo. [09:13] wait yes it does [09:13] wgrant: yep [09:13] <[reed]> wgrant: sure, we (Mozilla) didn't dispute it was a bug [09:14] and i would rather it use abrowser instead of web browser if we keep abrowser as name of package [09:17] but i do agree if we cant prompt user aaat install (d-i or install package) should be able to decline or have a choice. [09:17] maybe ubuntu-desktop depends on xulrunner instead of ff now [09:18] * gnomefreak hates broken packages that are not held back [09:18] * gnomefreak goes to look for mvo [09:28] lolz, what happened? :D [09:28] * armin76 blames asac [09:31] yay i might get a package in debian ;) [09:33] * gnomefreak has to learn debian's bug tracker [09:38] armin76: back from holiday ? [09:38] lol [09:38] i read it :P [09:38] i just woke up [09:39] see, that happens when everyone uses a distro :D [09:40] it was about time ubuntu did same as debian :) [09:41] Jazzva: asac are we pakaging non-free extensions? im temped to not package them [09:41] <[reed]> armin76: did you see http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/3976 ? [09:42] gnomefreak, non-free? I think not... [09:42] gnomefreak, what is non-free about it? [09:42] non-free as in its not opensource [09:42] Jazzva: foxmarks [09:43] gnomefreak, I don't think we can package that. [09:43] i figurd since im doing it for debian i would add it to us but i just heard its not opensource [09:43] gnomefreak, what we could do is to do something like flashplugin-nonfree. Make a script to download the xpi and install it. But I don't think it's a good idea to package something like that [09:43] Jazzva: ok thanks i will ask on the debian bug but im going to recommend not to package it [09:44] [reed]: yup [09:44] Jazzva: updated too soon [09:44] ok [09:44] so i will tell him we rather not [09:44] off to school... see you later [10:13] bug 270073 [10:14] Launchpad bug 270073 in nvidia-graphics-drivers-173 "After installing nvidia-glx-173 it fails to use a sreen resolution higher than 800X600" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/270073 [10:18] kwwii told me he asked you for the firefox patch to have rounded entry. I would like to be informed when it will be applied so I will add some fixes in the gtk+ engines [10:18] i Cimi_ [10:18] hi [10:18] ;) [10:18] hi asac ;) [10:18] well. that bug is currently milestoned for beta [10:18] so i will look at that once alpha-6 is out [10:21] Cimi_: did ken give you the bug id? [10:22] if you could poke me when it is merged, it would be simpler :) [10:22] i think we should drop mozilla-bookmarksftp since they dont update it often, im looking into what can replace it with more oftrn updated upstream and provides same/more features so we dont lose anything. [10:31] Cimi_: i most likely will forget [10:31] Cimi_: subscribing to bug is easier to not forget :) [10:32] gnomefreak: so 3.0 still not supported for bookmarksftp? [10:33] asac: havent tried it but i can today or tomorrow but its still an old version [10:33] im looking at the wiki atm to fill in details and see what is next on my list [10:34] isnt beagle add on for mozilla already in repos? [10:34] mozilla-beagle - Beagle extension for Firefox [10:35] why would we want http://beagle-project.org/Main_Page [10:38] gnomefreak: sounds like an interesting project [10:38] asac: as we should have both? [10:39] what is bookmarksftp about? [10:39] do we have a similar page? [10:39] for that? [10:39] asac: its a bookmark sync extension [10:39] thats a different use-case then what beagle provides. isnt it? [10:40] asac: not bookmarksftp but mozilla-beagle - Beagle extension for Firefox [10:40] asac: someone wwanted to have a simulur package [10:40] gnomefreak: right. but you asked "do we want both" [10:40] gnomefreak: which? [10:40] beagle [10:41] he? [10:41] isnt mozilla-beagle the same? [10:41] we have mozilla-beagle - Beagle extension for Firefox in repos someone wanted to add beagle-project.org in repos as well [10:41] maybe it just doesnt work on ffox 3 yet and thats what the user asks? [10:41] i fail to see that those are two different projects [10:41] do they have the same name but different project pages? [10:42] do we have an url for the mozilla-beagle project? [10:42] yes [10:43] asac: not atm but let me see if i can find it but here is the beagle addon that he wants to add ok wtf [10:43] please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Extensions/List#preview look at sugested extensions for beagle. he used beagle as source package [10:44] its the same this [10:44] the exact same thing [10:44] ok. then its just confusion [10:44] i am removing it [10:44] does beagle work in ffox 3 for us? [10:45] asac: i dont know i havent seena bug that it doesnt [10:45] or is that something we have to look into? the project sounds interesting and i would love to be sure it works [10:46] asac: no we shouldnt need to since its in repos already ive never used it nor do i use beagle at all its slows my pc down way too much [10:46] https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/beagle [10:48] i dont see any reason for it to be under suggeste extensions if its part of beagle and in repos for a while [10:48] if it doesnt work it falls under ubuntu-mono team (anyone can work on it but they are maintainers of it [10:48] ) [11:09] is there a way to just download a firefox extensions from the addons.mozilla site? i want .xpi but i dont want to install it just download [11:10] the website just makes you go to addons page to download [11:10] gnomefreak: you can usually right click on the link and say: "save as ..." [11:10] if i do it downloads a file with the addon number [11:12] yep just a text file [11:12] grab the URL and use wget? [11:12] IntuitiveNipple: tried [11:12] IntuitiveNipple: same thing [11:12] gnomefreak: can you give an example page URL I can try from? [11:13] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/424 [11:13] thats the one i want [11:13] asac: can I test your brain with a PPA build failure for xulrunner-1.9 that builds okay in a pbuilder? [11:13] Length: unspecified [text/html] [11:14] IntuitiveNipple: did you upload mozilla-devscripts? [11:14] you need it or PPA fails to build due to depends not met [11:14] gnomefreak: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/addons/424/wizz_rss_news_reader-3.0.0.2-fx.xpi [11:14] i havent gotten around fixing that in my PPA yet [11:15] where did you get that? [11:15] IntuitiveNipple: nope it didnt work [11:16] wait it should be a folder not a file right? [11:16] gnomefreak: Would they cause the problem with it reporting "debian/rules:148: *** EM_TRANSLATION_VERSION=1.9.0.1 LOCALE_VERSION=1.9.0.2+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu2ppa1h" at the very end of the packaging process? [11:16] gnomefreak: It worked here with wget [11:16] IntuitiveNipple: is it a file or folder? [11:16] gnomefreak: An .xpi file [11:16] its a file here (white not green in color [11:16] gnomefreak: 11:14:47 (139.54 KB/s) - `wizz_rss_news_reader-3.0.0.2-fx.xpi' saved [222208/222208] [11:17] 2008-09-17 06:15:15 (102 KB/s) - `wizz_rss_news_reader-3.0.0.2-fx.xpi' saved [222208/222208] [11:17] can you unpack it? [11:18] yes [11:18] unzip wizz_rss_news_reader-3.0.0.2-fx.xpi [11:18] IntuitiveNipple: ah ok i thought the term would have marked it as afolder [11:18] IntuitiveNipple: thanks [11:19] It needs a sub-directory creating first, saves it polluting the working directory [11:22] bug #270918 [11:22] Launchpad bug 270918 in network-manager "network manager should read default profile from 3G USB Stick" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/270918 [11:24] asac: Any clues why the PPA build of xulrunner-1.9 fails at the very end of packaging (pbuilder test worked) with "debian/rules:148: *** EM_TRANSLATION_VERSION=1.9.0.1 LOCALE_VERSION=1.9.0.2+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu2ppa1h. You need to explicitly adjust the translation version and min/max bounds.. Stop." [11:25] IntuitiveNipple: what changes do you have? [11:25] IntuitiveNipple: the xulrunner-1.9.head branch appears to build properly [11:25] (this most likelyhas something to do with the version synax you have choosen) [11:27] Very minimal patch (4 lines) to a file in the mozilla/uriloader/exthandler/ directory, and updated version string in debian/changelog, the patch-file, update to debian/patches/series, and maintainer in debian/control [11:27] IntuitiveNipple: show the complete diff [11:27] IntuitiveNipple: why update maintainer? [11:27] I'm confused as to why the build test I did on a hardy pbuilder worked :p [11:28] cant tell without looking at the full diff [11:28] asac: I usually do when I publish a PPA build since changes are down to me [11:28] okay hang on [11:28] IntuitiveNipple: no need to do that. changelog entry should make that clear enough [11:28] and if you put your nick in the package revision even better [11:29] but i dont care ;) [11:29] just was curious why you did that [11:30] oh hang on... I *might* know what happened! There were two pbuilders running at the same time, one with the hardy source, and one with intrepid. My build_test script saves the debian/changelog to /tmp/changelog.XXX - the version suggests the hardy package somehow picked up the intrepid changelog [11:30] * IntuitiveNipple kicks self and laughs === asac_ is now known as asac [11:31] asac: My PPA versions are always ~ppa[:digit:][f|g|h|i] - works with my automated build-test scripts :) [11:34] IntuitiveNipple: ok. you could replace ~ppa with ~yournick in future ;) [11:35] for instance: ~nm are builds i do in network-manager PPA ... ~asac are builds in my ppa .. and ~mt in mozillateawm ... ~fta is in fta ppa [11:35] but well. as long as there is ~ppa we can easily see that its not an official build [11:36] yup. [11:36] ~jjv for me ;) [11:36] I've always changed the maintainer since it's my package branch, not official. [11:36] IntuitiveNipple, *nod* me to [11:37] thats fine. but i dont mind if you keep the "ubuntu" maintainer in there [11:37] ok, deleted the bad PPA hardy package... uploading again :) [11:37] since you are somewhat active in this channel thats ok ;) [11:38] IntuitiveNipple: ok. so lets see [11:38] ok breakfast for me before i start the template [11:38] asac: I've always seen it as my responsibility once I make changes to a package... once they get out in the wild the last thing we want is someone using my package and then reporting bugs to 'official' packages [11:39] IntuitiveNipple: the maintainer field wont change that much imo [11:39] asac: Mike Hommey is reporting my patches to xulrunner also solve his mozilla bug #444440 [11:39] Mozilla bug 444440 in File Handling "Unexpected application launched when $HOME/.mailcap contains an entry for the handled mime type" [Normal,Assigned] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=444440 [11:39] IntuitiveNipple: if people dont understand that they are using an unofficial build they will hardyl check the Maintainer field before filing bugs [11:40] I've booked it into mozilla as mozilla bug #455626 [11:40] Mozilla bug 455626 in File Handling ""the associated helper application does not exist"" [Normal,Unconfirmed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455626 [11:40] IntuitiveNipple: why didnt you submit the patch? [11:40] asac: Hopefully in that case they won't know how to ad my PPA :) [11:40] asac: submit where? [11:40] IntuitiveNipple: you said you did a patch [11:40] IntuitiveNipple: but in that bug you didnt post it [11:40] I only just got it finalised, and am building these PPA packages for people to test it and confirm there are no regressions [11:40] so mike hommey had to redo everything you commented [11:41] asac: You've lost me [11:41] IntuitiveNipple: wasnt that duplicated effort then? from what i understood in bug mike hommey alrady updated his patch according to your comments [11:41] IntuitiveNipple: can you confirm that the latest patch from mike hommey fixes all? [11:42] asac: No, his patch didn't solve the issue and it introduced a regression when I tried it, it was also far too invasive in my opinion, especially for an Ubuntu patch. [11:42] IntuitiveNipple: did you try his patch from 15th sep? [11:43] e.g patch v4 [11:44] IntuitiveNipple: ok. [11:44] asac: 444440 comment #27, patch v4 doesn't solve it [11:44] IntuitiveNipple: ok [11:44] IntuitiveNipple: so are you happy with your patch? [11:44] or is there something that needs to be fixed? [11:45] IntuitiveNipple: if you are happy with it you have to request review [11:45] I am... it is very light-touch, and it doesn't introduce major changes, it simply ensures that once the correct mime-type is known, GetFromType() is called. [11:45] ok i confirmed the bug for now [11:45] IntuitiveNipple: please double check that the current patch is really the version that you want to see landed [11:46] when that is done, please ask review from bz [11:46] There was a comment by MH on 455626 that it probably isn't appropriate for 'trunk' since ... other changes... As I'm not into the state of mozilla development I have no idea if that is something to take account of for Ubuntu [11:46] IntuitiveNipple: you request review by editing the patch details and flipping review to ? and putting bz's email in the field [11:48] IntuitiveNipple: yeah. we need a trunk patch [11:48] Yeah, I got that last night. I'm going to wait until some Ubuntu users have confirmed the fix works with no apparent regressions in handling first. MH mentioned one from his test-suite but, having seen the state of the moz handler-code, I'm surprised there aren't more! It's a terrible mess! [11:48] IntuitiveNipple: in any case ... ask for review and explicitly state that this is ment to be a minimal intrusive solution for 1.9.0 branch [11:48] I've wasted a week on it, and most of that is because of the obtuse code. [11:48] Right, will do [11:49] and then try to ask mike hommey if he will address your changes in his patch or if he wants you to make a patch on top of his patch (or a completely different one) [11:49] for trunk [11:49] I think they should remain separate, his patch is hideously messy, ripping large bits out, I examined it and decided quickly to stay away. [11:51] The root cause of most of the helper issues is the fact that two separate strands of code (at download launch, and again at completion) try to work out which handler to use. It should be done once, at launch, and then just acted on later. [12:31] hmm. opinions on bug 270894 ? [12:32] Launchpad bug 270894 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox is located in the wrong section of the Ubuntu Archive" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/270894 [12:33] imo its correct, but theres been bugs about it before, so i expect that will be another WONTFIX [12:34] i also think the reporter got a point there. [12:34] asac: can i change wizz_rss_news_reader to wizz-rss in control and changelog? [12:35] everyone has opinions on that and there is a big bug on it already [12:36] see bug 269656 [12:37] bug 269656 [12:37] Error: Could not parse data returned by Launchpad: (-5, 'No address associated with hostname') (https://launchpad.net/bugs/269656/+text) [12:37] huh [12:37] wth [12:37] Error: Could not parse data returned by Launchpad: (-5, 'No address associated with hostname') (https://launchpad.net/bugs/269656/+text) [12:37] ok lets go find out [12:37] brb [12:37] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656 [12:38] just for easy reference (which is cited in thebug Ampelbein meantions) [12:38] Error: Could not parse data returned by Launchpad: (-5, 'No address associated with hostname') (https://launchpad.net/bugs/269656/+text) [12:38] bug 269656 [12:38] 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 [12:38] it works in -ops [12:38] there it it [12:38] ah, wb ubottu [12:40] anyway that is the bug that is all about ff and freinds [12:44] * Kamping_Kaiser -> bed. [12:44] catch you later all [12:44] bye [12:48] i guess its lunch time [12:48] for him [12:57] no i got distracted [12:59] ah [13:00] can i shorten the package name to wizz-rss instead of wizz_rss_news_reader [13:01] i think ill update XPI.TEMPLATE while i at it changes: standard version bump and iceweasle and abrwoser [13:01] only spelled right [13:08] asac: you might want to either merge my XPI.TEMP to mt or i will just push the changes up to you [13:15] i will finish this extension sometime today i need to lay down im feeling nausus(however its spelled) i wonder if i can get a spell check for irssi [13:19] gnomefreak: show me the diff you prepared for XPI.TEMPLATE ... if thats ok you can just push to ~mozillateam [13:28] http://paste.ubuntu.com/47757/ [13:31] fta: random crash or doing something specific? [13:32] this crash probably cannot be nailed down unless we know what triggers this (because its a nativeevent that was triggered async) [13:34] asac, it's on shutdown, it never returns and takes all the cpu (or crashes). I interrupted it, it's stuck in NS_ShutdownXPCOM_P [13:34] fta: ah ... right its SIGINT [13:35] just open the browser, visit a page and shut it [13:35] fta: one potential reason might be a hidden window still dangling somewhere [13:35] hmm [13:35] fta: doesnt matter what kind of page? [13:35] or flash again? [13:35] not sure [13:35] 61 tabs [13:36] well. then "just open the browser, visit a page and shut it" isnt accurate [13:36] looks like a dead lock to me [13:36] so unless proven differently its flash causing this [13:36] i've been suffering from that for months [13:36] well ... most likely not dead lock, but just a not cancelled even source [13:37] that eventsource could be a dangling window [13:37]