[00:01] <asac> crimsun: can you hold back on the major refactoring due to the amd64 plugin that came up until UDS
[00:01] <asac> ?
[00:01] <asac> there are a  few things we should consider when seriously touching that package again
[00:01] <crimsun> asac: sure
=== fabrice_sp_ is now known as fabrice_sp
[09:32] <gnomefreak> anyone have the master hotmail bug handy?
[10:09] <gnomefreak> bug 155459
[10:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 155459 in firefox "login hotmail.com" [Low,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/155459
[10:18] <gnomefreak> i give up i cant find that bug to save my life
=== directhe` is now known as directhex
[12:59]  * asac yawns
[15:27] <rzr> asac: hi, I need your advice
[15:27] <rzr> asac: about flashblock, upstream never pull real version into repository's files
[15:27] <rzr> he uses alpha versions all the time
[15:28] <rzr> so should we set this by hand (as he does) or uses alpha versions ...
[15:28] <rzr> #2 option is better for me
[15:54] <Volans> Hi all :)
[15:55] <Volans> asac: did you remember that you can't contact all members of a LP group if someone of them hide the email address to others?
[15:55] <Volans> There was an LP bug open and now a fix was released.... see LP bug 66105
[15:56] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 66105 in launchpad-registry "Team admin can't contact prospective member who hides e-mail addresses" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/66105
[15:56] <Volans> ;)
[16:11] <asac> Volans: oh
[16:11] <asac> and what about actual members that are not prospective?
[16:11] <asac> does that work too? how?
[16:24] <Volans> asac: sincerly I don't have investigated, just at work now and when I have received the email from LP I have remember that we have spoken about that when organizing the mozillateam meetings ;)
=== stevel_ is now known as stevel
=== stevel is now known as stevel-smegging-
=== stevel-smegging- is now known as stevel
[17:18] <nxvl> hi!
[17:18] <nxvl> where can i put an ini that goes to ./usr/lib/firefox-$VERSION/distribution/ so it's version independient?
[18:45] <Lns> asac: hey, is the newly released FF 3.0.4+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.8.04.1 including the /dev/urandom fix ? I don't see it in the changelog, but i might just not be seeing it..
[18:55] <nxvl> asac: ping
=== fta_ is now known as fta
[20:25] <saivann> asac : ping
[20:26] <nxvl_> fta: ping
[20:50] <fta> nxvl_, pong
[20:51] <nxvl_> fta: hi! i'm fighting with a binary package for firefox, which is installing everything into /usr/lib/firefox-VERSION, i already moved the extension to where it should be to be version independendt
[20:51] <nxvl_> fta: but still don't know where to put the distribution.ini
[20:52] <nxvl_> which is installed in /usr/lib/firefox-VERSION/distribution
[20:52] <nxvl_> fta: did you have any idea of where it should go?
[20:53] <fta> hm, i don't think you should use /usr/lib/firefox-VERSION at all. it's not stable as it changes for each version.
[20:53] <nxvl_> yup
[20:53] <nxvl_> that's why i want to move it from there
[20:53] <nxvl_> but i don't know where to put it
[20:53] <fta> what do you mean by "binary package for firefox" ?
[20:53] <nxvl_> as in i'm trying to get rid of it
[20:53] <fta> what project is that?
[20:53] <nxvl_> is a google toolbar binary package
[20:55] <fta> it's not an extension?
[20:56] <nxvl_> containing an extension
[20:56] <fta> we have stable paths for extensions and plugins
[20:56] <nxvl_> i'm not sure what it does or has
[20:57] <nxvl_> fta: did you have a wiki page or something i take a look at?
=== nxvl_ is now known as nxvl
[20:57] <fta> hm, not for that i'm afraid. we have one for extensions, and one for xulapps
[20:58] <fta> do you have an install.rdf ?
[21:02]  * nxvl checks
[21:03] <nxvl> yes i have
[21:04] <fta> so it's an extenson
[21:04] <fta> you can use the xpi feature from mozilla-devscripts
[21:04] <fta> i should automagically do everything for you
[21:08] <fta> -i+it
[21:09] <fta> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Extensions
[21:12] <fta> [reed], mconnor: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/jpeg/MOZCHANGES "Lots of undocumented changes. :("  bad :(
[21:12] <[reed]> talk to glennmp
[21:12] <[reed]> oh
[21:12] <[reed]> jpeg
[21:12] <[reed]> I dunno
[21:12] <[reed]> yeah
[21:12] <[reed]> don't use system-jpeg
[21:12] <[reed]> ;)
[21:13] <fta> we don't, but we should
[21:13] <mconnor> I don't know if that's even still current
[21:13] <mconnor> that's a five year old comment, likely
[21:13] <fta> chromium took yours, so it's another copy, bad
[21:14] <mconnor> hmm
[21:14] <mconnor> neat
[21:14] <mconnor> maybe we should be the new system-jpeg :)
[21:14] <fta> yep maybe, afaik, upstream is dead
[21:15] <fta> README for release 6b of 27-Mar-1998
[21:16] <[reed]> there's a lot of good patches still in bmo for our libjpeg
[21:16] <[reed]> so, yeah, we probably are the best new owners of system jpeg
[21:16] <[reed]> :)
[21:16] <fta> my point is that if those patches are so good, they should be in system lib
[21:17] <fta> but your patches are not documented
[21:18] <[reed]> they are in bonsai ;)
[21:18] <[reed]> and bugzilla
[21:19] <fta> somewhere in zillions of bugs...
[21:22] <fta> http://paste.ubuntu.com/74007/
[21:23] <[reed]> I know our libjpeg is faster than everybody else's
[21:23] <[reed]> some smart guy at Intel worked on it
[21:23] <[reed]> :)
[21:24] <fta> with your sse/sse2/mmx code, i have no doubt about it
[23:03] <fta> individual changes are lost :( big merges from the early days
[23:39] <fta> mozilla bug 299200
[23:39] <ubottu> Mozilla bug 299200 in Menus "context menu is out of window" [Normal,Verified: duplicate] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299200
[23:43] <fta> mozilla bug 1025
[23:43] <ubottu> Mozilla bug 1025 in GFX "NGLayout crashes on this URL" [Critical,Verified: fixed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1025