[00:31] <fta> damn, %VERSION% is not understood in general.useragent.extra.firefox
[00:32] <fta> asac, i don't think setting general.useragent.extra.firefox in the branding branch was such a good idea
[00:40] <fta> !seen asac
[00:40] <ubottu> I have no seen command
[00:44] <asac> he?
[00:44] <asac> ;)
[00:44] <asac> fta: well. not sure. where do you want to put it?
[00:45] <asac> fta: why cant we make those js files sensible to VERSION?
[00:45] <fta> i used pref("general.useragent.extra.firefox", "Firefox/%VERSION%") hoping it will be resolved, it's not in the About UI
[00:45] <asac> yeah
[00:45] <asac> it doesnt happen automagically
[00:46] <fta> you hardcoded 3.0.1 in abrowser, so i inherited that in 3.1 too, i wanted to fix it but my 1st attempt didn't work
[00:47] <asac> fta: hmm. dont we use PREF_JS_EXPORTS in the branding Makefile.in ?
[00:47] <asac> wait ;)
[00:48] <asac> those %VERSOIN% things in the url are replaced at runtime
[00:48] <asac> so we would need to use template ;)
[00:49] <asac> anyway. i currently wonder why we have that useragent thing in there
[00:49] <fta> it was already in the 1st commit
[00:50] <fta> that sets Firefox instead of something else in the useragent
[00:50] <asac> try @APP_VERSION@
[00:51] <asac> the original line is pref("general.useragent.extra.firefox", "@APP_UA_NAME@/@APP_VERSION@");
[00:51] <asac> so Firefox/@APP_VERSION@ should be ok
[00:53] <fta> Sep 26 18:17:21 <mvo> asac: I got this nice "restart fixfox" box inside ff now, but when I press it, ff just died and did not restart - known issue?
[00:53] <fta> asac, ^^ in #ubuntu-desktop
[00:54] <asac> fta: yeah i aw that. but he most likely wasnt there when i saw it;)
[00:54] <asac> fta: well. i think i saw that too here
[00:54] <asac> but not really reproducible :/
[00:56] <asac> i hope its a bug in the restart command guessing
[00:56] <fta> Firefox/@APP_VERSION@ doesn't work
[00:56] <fta> in my 3.1 build, it's already subst at build time
[00:57] <asac> fta: yes .. that should happen if you use that pattern actually
[00:57] <asac> with PREF_JS_EXPORT in Makefile.in
[00:58] <fta> trying
[00:59] <fta> I also have no logo in the about ui with firefox-3.1-branding while i have one with abrowser-3.1-branding
[01:01] <asac> fta: sounds like the "other" branding patch is wrong then
[01:05] <fta> still doesn't work
[01:05] <fta> PREF_JS_EXPORT is already there
[01:09] <fta> @APP_VERSION@ is not controlled by PREF_JS_EXPORT, it's a basic sed when it's needed
[01:21] <asac> oh ... then that ;)
[01:23] <fta> but imho, this line is not needed
[01:23] <fta> you should get Firefox anyway
[01:25] <fta> oh no, you'll get WebBrowser/versidon
[01:25] <fta> this is controlled by branding/awesome-browser/configure.sh
[01:26] <fta> MOZ_APP_DISPLAYNAME => APP_UA_NAME
[01:27] <fta> asac, what about moving this to /etc/firefox-3.0/pref/branding.js ?
[01:27] <fta> or /etc/firefox-3.0/pref/abrowser.js
[01:29] <fta> fta@voyager:~ $ abrowser-3.0
[01:29] <fta> exec: 118: /usr/lib/firefox-3.0.3/abrowser-3.0: not found
[01:30] <fta> fta@voyager:~ $ dpkg -S abrowser-3.0
[01:30] <fta> firefox-3.0: /usr/bin/abrowser-3.0
[01:31] <fta> but i don't have abrowser-3.0-branding installed, why do I have the link ?
[01:33] <fta> this is confusing
[01:54] <fta> asac, the desktop file is confusing too
=== asac_ is now known as asac
[12:55] <Hobbsee> hey guys, it looks like firefox-2 isn't installable.  Do you guys plan to fix this?
[12:56] <Hobbsee> oh, the latest version got tried 18 days ago, but FTBFS.  Please fix :)
[15:35] <fta> Hobbsee, firefox-2 will be removed from intrepid. btw, what is broken?
[15:36] <fta> asac, i changed a few things for abrowser, ie, desktop files and icons are in their respective branding packages, it is working fine now
[15:38] <fta> the only thing i don't like but that i haven't touched yet is the link in /usr/bin. is there a reason to install /usr/bin/abrowser(-3.0) when abrowser-3.0-branding is not installed/wanted?
[15:40] <fta> same question for the /usr/bin/firefox-3.0 link when abrowser-3.0-branding is installed (i understand that /usr/bin/firefox is wanted at all costs, but not the versioned one)
=== asac_ is now known as asac
[17:45] <fta> asac, xpi.mk only works with xpi in the top level dir :(
[18:06] <fta> ok, i fixed it
[18:25] <fta> asac, please review my xpi.mk patch, i need it to build projects using xulapp.mk, such as prism
[18:56] <asac> fta: merge request?
[19:05] <asac> fta: i think the patch is OK... even though it has a non-related changelog hunk ;)
[19:06] <asac> (for minefield-packager)
[19:06] <asac> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/mozilla-devscripts/mozilla-devscripts/revision/179
[19:06] <asac> but i guess thats OK ;)
[19:07] <fta> well, just a carriage return
[19:08] <fta> asac, what about the new prism in intrepid, too late?
[19:08] <fta> (i hate the new background picture, i prefer the heron one)
[19:09] <asac> fta: you are a MOTU ;). try to follow the procedure and see what happens (prism)
[19:10] <asac> i am actually not even sure if universe is in a freeze or not
[19:10] <asac> it definitly isnt a the same freeze that the main archive is
[19:10] <asac> (because RMs will not review uploads, just push through if you say that)
[19:10] <fta> "Uploads to universe require a manual push through the queue, but are not subject to release management approval"
[19:10] <asac> fta: right. but that doesnt mean that there is nothing to do
[19:11] <asac> universe is goverend by motu-release
[19:11] <asac> i think its in a feature freeze
[19:11] <asac> so the normal procedure is to post a bug, subscribe them and explain the benefits as well the risks
[19:11] <asac> risks should be rather low
[19:12] <asac> but giving detailed information probably makes it easier ;)
[19:12] <asac> e.g. are there features or things that worked before and that are now not working and so on
[19:12] <asac> fta: did something happen with the 3.1 bug?
[19:16] <fta> asac, nothing, sistpoty is ok but wants motu-sru's feedback
[19:17] <fta> asac, so, what do you think about my ff3 change in .heads?
[19:17] <fta> -s
[19:18] <fta> changeS
[19:35] <asac> fta: commented
[19:35] <asac> ;)
[19:36] <asac> i actually didnt proof read
[19:36] <fta> asac, you didn't use mozclient for xul on hardy ???
[19:36] <asac> so lets hope they get the point
[19:36] <fta> Get:207 http://ftpmaster.internal hardy-security/main xulrunner-1.9 1.9.0.3+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.8.04.1 [7764kB]
[19:36] <fta> tar zxf /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.0.3/sdk/build-system.tar.gz
[19:36] <fta> tar: /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.0.3/sdk/build-system.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
[19:36] <fta> tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
[19:37] <asac> hardy?
[19:37] <fta> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/18004580/buildlog_ubuntu-hardy-i386.prism_0.9.1%2Bsvn20080918r18380-0ubuntu1~fta2~hardy_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[19:37] <asac> fta: i dont change the hardy package
[19:37] <asac> its in the same state that we released it
[19:37] <asac> thats the whole point of stable releases
[19:38] <asac> or am i getting something wrong?
[19:38] <fta> it's 1.9.0.3
[19:38] <asac> and?
[19:38] <fta> so it's a new tarball, but it's missing build-system.tar.gz
[19:38] <asac> i dont have that build-system here in 1.9.0.2
[19:39] <fta> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 585582 2008-09-25 18:15 /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.0.3/sdk/build-system.tar.gz
[19:39] <asac> fta: the build-system is most likely produced by the packaging right? or by a patch we ship in the packaging branch
[19:39] <asac> fta: yes. tahts intrepid
[19:39] <asac> fta: we have a patch to produce the build-system dont we?
[19:39] <fta> it's in m-d
[19:39] <asac> fta: yes. and hardy doesnt get any new m-d
[19:40] <asac> fta: so m-d patches xulrunner build system to produce such a tarball?
[19:40] <asac> how does ti get into the xulrunner-1.9-dev?
[19:40] <fta> i don't get it, you did a tarball for hardy and another for intrepid ??
[19:41] <asac> how does the build-system.tar.gz get into that directory?
[19:41] <asac> thats not a source directory, but a binary dir
[19:41] <asac> /usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.0.3/sdk/build-system.tar.gz
[19:42] <fta> oh, it's not m-d, it's xul at build time
[19:42] <asac> right
[19:42] <fta> so i'm doomed
[19:42] <asac> thats also a new feature
[19:43] <asac> fta: well.... you do hardy in ppa ... push xul there too
[19:43] <asac> e.g. thats an intrepid backport you need technically
[19:43] <fta> i do, but it used your tarball
=== wikz_ is now known as wikz
[19:52] <fta> asac, i can't request the new prism if the new m-d is not in first
[19:53] <fta> so i'm really doomed
[20:24] <fta> excellent, the prism extension is working just fine
[22:10] <fta> asac, http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=931586