=== asac_ is now known as asac [01:16] asac, funny.. http://codereview.chromium.org/155558 [01:16] linux: add flash workarounds [01:16] there goes QT and KDE [01:16] This adds a few workarounds for Flash bugs on linux, hooking gtk and X [01:21] chromium uses gtk, not qt, so what? [01:21] nothing nothing [01:22] reed_, http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=contentLoadURL is it true or false by default? [01:55] * BUGabundo stolen from @yofel: gn folks [mv /dev/awake /dev/bed] [10:36] asac, hi [10:36] Why Seamonkey 1.1.17 is declined for Hardy/LTS? [10:37] I made it yesterday from source found in Gnomefreak`s PPA and it works fine, now. Even got 64-bit enigmail done. [10:38] micahg: he hasnt pushed it to any repo yet [10:38] oops [10:38] :) [10:38] hi gnomefreak [10:38] nikolam: it hasnt been pushed and i have it built in PPA already for karmic iirc but its on his list to push [10:38] micahg: hi sorry for the ping ;) [10:40] nikolam: i stay on top of seamonkey normally its packaged within a week of release. now sunbird is a diffferent story i try to stay on top of it but that doesnt happen alot of times they are the 2 main projects i maintain [10:41] great. I am already using it, I compiled from source/patch you provided, looks fine on Hardy 64bit :) [10:41] I some testing is needed.. [10:41] nikolam: enigmail is a mess it needs to be redone but we havent gotten to it [10:42] nikolam: i have locale builds for all supported versions and testing atleast on 32bit has been sucessful [10:42] I made enigmail, too, There is some manual on enigmail forum I followed. it works on 64-bit SM [10:42] 64-bit works here [10:42] i can build it fine from .xpi however we really need to fix the whole package for repos [10:42] Can I help testing releases of SM, etc, [10:43] I can Use Vm`s also and native install of Karmic [10:44] nikolam: sure i push them to PPA when im done with them. seamonkey2 is fairly old and that is due to problem with mozilla-devscripts once i get latest tarball i will fix the patching issue and start again on it [10:44] installing SM2 should work from my PPA but i dont remember what versions i built for. it says failed but it should use last sucessful build [10:45] gnomefreak, I just had some problems with 1.1.15 available in your ppa, i think, it wasn`t working with some extensions. After instaling from repos, it worked. i had to remove your ppa from repos list . [10:45] I installed SM2 from ppa :) [10:45] and it is working here on hardy/64 [10:46] nikolam: its better to not have my PPA in sources list since they are my main testing packages 1.1.17 should have fixed the extension issues [10:46] I am now on 1.1.17 so I think it is safe to re-enable Ppa [10:46] ok man [10:46] So, can I help testing and how would be best? [10:47] nikolam: i suggest just getting the .deb from PPA but most packages at this time should be safe [10:48] i have 2-3 more bugs to work out in sunbird and i can finall be done with that :) [10:48] i use sunbird. [10:48] so i should download sunbird from your PPA and give it a test? [10:49] maybe i can drop the whole convert part of rules [10:49] nikolam: sunbird i fixed a few things already just working on icon bug and build-dep bug [10:49] nikolam: sunbird is safe as it is [10:49] I am capable producing .debs if I have .dsc and sources [10:49] it will be getting updated when i get a chance [10:50] so i can make it on fly for hardy for testing [10:50] PPA's do it for you :) [10:51] once i get a chance to fix the rest of bugs i will push to PPA. monday i wont be here unless its for a few minutes and the full week of 27th i wont be here [10:52] where do i post responces for testing and what to look for while testing [10:52] * gnomefreak should really talk to mvo about this apt bug [10:52] gnomefreak: seems like asac forgot about bug 365965 when he released ff3.5.1 [10:52] Launchpad bug 365965 in ubufox "[MASTER] Firefox3.5 recommends ubufox but should suggest ubufox" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/365965 [10:52] nikolam: you can post them to the mailing list (see topic) or you can email me [10:53] great gnome [10:53] micahg: yeah i marked a bug invalid this morning because it was already filed. i will look at it if i am up in a bit [10:54] people keep commenting, I was thinking to clean up the description with one of those DO NOT POST UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD type of thing [10:54] sorry for caps, but appropriate :) [10:55] gnomefreak, it only bugs me asac marked rejected SM 1.1.17 for hardy/interpid? [10:55] i will look at it and provide a diff on the bug [10:55] nikolam: do you have a bug # [10:55] ok, thanks :) [10:55] I guess I probably oculd do that too... [10:55] 356274 [10:56] micahg: once i start it will take all of 3 minutes :) [10:57] ok, then you do it :) [10:57] it'll take me more than that [10:57] I've got about 60 bugs waiting on responses from me... [10:57] :) [10:57] and I still need sleep [10:58] how ya doin BTW... [10:58] maybe a bit longer. looking to see what he has done with this [10:59] gnomefreak, 356274 [11:00] bug 356274 [11:00] Launchpad bug 356274 in seamonkey "[MASTER] Please update seamonkey to latest 1.1.17" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/356274 [11:01] yup declined for hardy/interpid [11:04] nikolam: ok if i see him i will remind him [11:05] micahg: Suggests: ubufox in firefox-3.0 [11:05] ah 3.5 needs to be moved [11:06] yeah, I think he fixed 3.0 [11:06] 3.0.12 seems to suggest now [11:06] no, 3.0.11 was also suggest [11:07] ok im grabbing 3.5 source atm so it will be a bit [11:07] I think asac's dream is to recommend [11:07] but unless we can uncouple ubufox from all the gnome deps, we can't [11:07] we tried that and it caused problems so i will do it and see what he thinks [11:08] yeah, that can be for later [11:08] right now, if we just move from recommend to suggest, most of the people will stop complaining [11:10] and someone just opened anoth bug for it... [11:12] micahg: working on it and i should have debdiff in the next 2 or so hours. shit!! [11:14] wow [11:15] I duped the bug [11:18] ok grabbed wrong version :( i think i know the icon bug in sunbird i hope [11:43] micahg: uploaded .debdiff to bug [11:58] bug 339400 [11:58] Launchpad bug 339400 in firefox-3.0 "FireFox crashed while running doing search in Stellarium (dup-of: 324176)" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/339400 [11:58] Launchpad bug 324176 in kdebase-runtime "Oxygen widget style causes various KDE apps to crash on exit" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/324176 [11:58] huh [11:59] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lightning-sunbird/+bug/399400 [12:00] Ubuntu bug 399400 in lightning-sunbird "Sunbird does not use highest resolution icon" [Undecided,In progress] [12:00] oh damn [12:03] eh should fix branch anyway [12:13] * gnomefreak really should have taken the day off [12:14] hey gnomefreak [12:14] hi BUGabundo [12:15] ok pushing sunbird for testing icon bug than i guess later this week fix my branch [12:43] check email once more than im gone [13:02] fta: where do you have the docs for your PPA bots? [13:57] BUGabundo, why? [13:59] fta for #exaile guys to put a daily ppa [13:59] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/401367 [13:59] Ubuntu bug 401367 in nautilus "View mode always changes to Icons" [Undecided,Confirmed] [13:59] errrr [13:59] https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~fta/+junk/ppa-scripts [13:59] found it here [14:42] yes [15:01] BUGabundo, send them here if they need help [15:24] !ping asac [15:24] Sorry, I don't know anything about ping asac [15:33] ahah [15:35] BUGabundo: any idea with this bug 371890 [15:35] Launchpad bug 371890 in adobe-flashplugin "package adobe-flashplugin 10.0.22.87-1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-removal script returned error exit status 2" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/371890 [15:37] ME ME ME [15:37] grrr [15:37] I can't remove mine [15:37] wait that [15:38] u also cant remove? [15:39] nope [15:40] and I'm on karmic [15:45] me too [15:46] The following partially installed packages will be configured: [15:46] flashplugin-installer [15:46] 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. [15:46] Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. [15:46] Setting up flashplugin-installer (10.0.22.87ubuntu2) ... [15:46] cd: 143: can't cd to /var/cache/flashplugin-installer [15:46] dpkg: error processing flashplugin-installer (--configure): [15:46] subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 2 [15:46] E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) [15:46] A package failed to install. Trying to recover: [15:47] hope there will someone to look at it .. or else .. im stuck with any other package.. [15:48] not here [15:48] e-jat: $ sudo aptitude safe-upgrade [15:50] BUGabundo: http://paste.ubuntu.com/221982/ [15:50] is it ok ? [15:51] BUGabundo: thanks a lot :) [15:51] yeah that's what I get [15:52] my flash work [15:52] you don't have much holding on it [15:52] you are fine [15:52] again .. [15:52] :) [15:53] 1 not fully installed or removed. <-- its ok .. ill try to ignore before it going to be fix [15:54] yeah [15:54] been doing that for 2 daus [15:54] going out for a while .. see ya in a few hour .. [15:54] darn asac when on vacation :( [15:54] owh .. no wonder .. [15:55] asac: is on vacation .. [15:55] we will raise to him when he coming back from vacation :) [15:55] gtg ... c ya in a short while .. [15:58] !info adobe-flashplugin [15:58] Package adobe-flashplugin does not exist in jaunty [15:58] !info adobe-flashplugin karmic [15:58] !info adobe-flashplugin karmicccc [15:58] Package adobe-flashplugin does not exist in karmic [15:58] 'karmicccc' is not a valid distribution: dapper, dapper-backports, hardy, hardy-backports, intrepid, intrepid-backports, jaunty, jaunty-backports, karmic, karmic-backports, kubuntu-backports, kubuntu-experimental, kubuntu-updates, medibuntu, partner [15:58] !info adobe-flashplugin partner [15:58] adobe-flashplugin (source: adobe-flashplugin): Adobe Flash Player plugin version 10. In component main, is optional. Version 10.0.22.87-2intrepid1 (partner), package size 3870 kB, installed size 9976 kB (Only available for i386 lpia) [15:59] fta ahahahahahaha [15:59] partner, so adobe broke it [15:59] I guess so [15:59] -2intrepid1? lol [16:00] Only available for i386 lpia, pfff [16:01] eeheeh [17:54] fta darn [17:55] I can't get some food, and get ahead of me ?! [17:55] :)) [18:36] ping asac [18:38] not here [18:38] MIA all weekeng [18:38] I think he went on vacations and forgot to let us know [18:38] I was afraid of that, ok it'll wait till tomorrow [18:44] [Fri 17 21:32] habve to run (friday night) [18:45] fta he must be reaching grece by now, if he is still running :) [18:45] yeah, I was here then :) [18:47] * fta turning the TV on to see if asac is in the news.. [18:49] ahahhahahahahaahhaaahahhaahhaahahahahahahaaahahh [19:06] is it possible to get FF 3.5 for ubuntu (64) [19:08] FirstSgt: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion [19:08] FirstSgt: I'm running it [19:08] even running FF 3.6 [19:09] cool, i have firefox-3.6 [19:09] s/6/5/g [19:10] FirstSgt: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa [19:10] i've just totally 100% ditched Microsoft in all ways shapes and forms on all of the office computers. [19:10] BUGabundo: we're not pushing that if people want stable [19:10] ok [19:11] https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-security/+archive/ppa [19:11] better micahg? [19:11] mozilla-security ppa if they're willing to take a little risk and get the updates first [19:11] a little [19:11] it was what I had on hand ! [19:11] there's still some risk involved [19:11] that has to be explain [19:11] *explained [19:11] cool FirstSgt [19:12] nice. I think this should work. [19:12] I was very concerned about the FF 3.5 exploit found on milworm. does that shell code apply to linux versions as well? [19:13] idk, but 3.5.1 is already in the repos [19:13] hopefully fixed [19:13] yes, indeed [19:14] very scary someone can write javascript that can overflow the browser and create user accounts. [19:14] then use cross-site-scripting exploits on thousands of other sites to implement it [19:16] since our company uses a lot of open source (we donate a lot too :)), I check the exploit sites every day. I found it a lot safer than running MS based products like sharepoint (the cost to update is insane so small businesses stay at the lower (exploitable) versions). [19:16] but thanks for your help guys. [19:16] np [19:48] damn, i've posted chromium twice [19:53] fta where? [19:57] ppa [19:57] BUGabundo, https://edge.launchpad.net/builders/ [20:00] * BUGabundo presses cancel button [20:51] okay, so now that i've updated no pages show up. it says firefox is in offline mode [20:51] how can i change this? [20:51] asac, hello [20:51] File menu? [20:54] wow [20:54] thanks [21:01] np [21:03] FirstSgt: File> Offline [21:03] bluekuja: asac is MIA [21:03] BUGabundo, since when? [21:03] since Friday [21:03] he left his house then for the weekend [21:07] :\ [22:23] FirstSgt: I didn't see the second post on slashdot === micahg1 is now known as icahg === icahg is now known as micahg [22:29] ? [22:31] http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-2479 [22:31] it's all garbage [22:31] it's a non-exploitable DoS [22:31] nobody actually took the time to ask Mozilla about it [22:31] ah, ok [22:32] we're posting a blog post soon [22:32] reed_: are you the official mozilla guy here? [22:32] mozilla bug 504342 [22:32] Mozilla bug 504342 in Layout: Text "Investigate milw0rm 9158 "unicode stack overflow"" [Normal,New] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504342 [22:32] I am one Mozilla guy here. [22:32] micahg: he is [22:32] there are others [22:32] well, I'm opening a bug in our tracker as well [22:33] ok, you can link it to the bug I posted above [22:33] yep, thanks :) [22:35] so would this be low importance? [22:38] yes [22:39] it's just a DoS [22:40] eheh _just_ lol [22:43] reed_: what about this one: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-2478 [22:44] was that already fixed in 3.5.1? [22:46] no [22:46] not fixed yet... it's just a DoS, too [22:46] ok, so I'll open an issue for that too [22:46] is the private bug, the one in progress? [22:46] and the one I should link to? [22:47] CVE-2009-2478 maps to mozilla bug 502648 [22:47] Error: Error getting Mozilla bug #502648: NotPermitted [22:47] ok [22:50] http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2009/07/19/milw0rm-9158-stack-overflow-crash-not-exploitable-cve-2009-2479/ [22:50] micahg: ^ [22:51] thanks [22:51] I just read it [22:55] and I just posted the other CVE to ff 3,5 [23:25] asac, http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/deps/third_party/ffmpeg/README.chromium :( [23:26] that part: "The following flags are used for Google Chrome, which also include non-free decoders (H.264, AAC and MP3)" [23:30] fta do you really think asac log will be all that big ?? eheh [23:32] he often reads the logs directly posted to him, so maybe. so far, it still fits in my scrollbar (oldest entry is Fri 15:33) [23:35] ok [23:36] fta: re your question -- did you get an answer? [23:36] or do I need to ask? [23:37] fta so what's app with chromium codecs? [23:37] reed_, hm, which question? [23:37] BUGabundo, what's app? can't parse that [23:37] [17:22:40] reed_, http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?string=contentLoadURL is it true or false by default? [23:38] reed_, i guessed it's enabled by default but the link gives a confusing result [23:38] fta: so that's it, Google Chrome and Chromium will diverge /wrt the list of audio/video codecs.. :( http://is.gd/1Eyi1 *sigh* [23:38] BUGabundo, what's your question? [23:40] BUGabundo, Chromium has ogg, vorbis and theora, Google Chrome has that + H.264, AAC and MP3 which are non-free [23:41] ahh right [23:41] though so [23:41] but distros already have that right? [23:41] I'll be able to play mp3 and h264 on it? [23:42] nope, not until i change something [23:42] oopss [23:47] i can make chromium depend on chromium-codecs | chromium-codecs-nonfree with the latter in multiverse or something like that (but ppa and multiverse; no idea...) === BUGabundo1 is now known as BUGabundo