[06:31] <LLStarks> hey asac and fta, is it just me, or does thunderbird 3.0 look like shit now.
[06:33] <DWonderly> hey guys... question. Don't knwo if it's a bug or not...
[06:34] <micahg> DWonderly: shoot
[06:34] <DWonderly> when I installed 9.10A5 through update-manager it kept Firefox 3.0 installed and placed firefox 3.5.3 along side firefox 3.0
[06:35] <DWonderly> Not a huge deal but, I didn't know if this sounded familiar or not.
[06:35] <micahg> DWonderly: firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5 are separate in Ubuntu
[06:35] <micahg> you will find that firefox changed from 3.0 to 3.5 though in karmic
[06:36] <DWonderly> I know. But, my point is that it didn't just upgrade it. It added it so both were installed.
[06:36] <DWonderly> So, when it was said and done I had both 3.0 and 3.5
[06:37] <micahg> DWonderly: what did you have before?
[06:37] <DWonderly> 3.0
[06:37] <DWonderly> The update replaced all other updates except firefox
[06:37] <DWonderly> *Updated packages
[06:38] <micahg> well
[06:38] <micahg> firefox upgraded to 3.5 and installed firefox-3.5, firefox-3.0 was installed and just upgraded itself
[06:38] <DWonderly> ... It didn't upgrade itself.
[06:38] <micahg> (12:35:21 AM) micahg: DWonderly: firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5 are separate in Ubuntu
[06:39] <micahg> firefox-3.0 upgraded from the jaunty version to the karmic version of itself
[06:39] <DWonderly> ok... but, shouldn't update-manager catch that?
[06:39] <micahg> no
[06:39] <DWonderly> ??
[06:39] <micahg> both are valid packages in karmic
[06:39] <micahg> at the moment
[06:40] <DWonderly> I figured that out but, it should have replaced one.
[06:40] <micahg> nope
[06:40] <DWonderly> should being the keyword
[06:40] <micahg> some people might want both at the moment
[06:40] <DWonderly> uh huh...
[06:40] <DWonderly> Okay.
[06:40] <micahg> DWonderly: if we remove ff3.0 in the final release, it will replace it
[06:41] <micahg> DWonderly: I have to go, I'll be back in an hour if you want to discuss this further
[06:41] <DWonderly> that would be better for the non-tech users out there that will freak out having 2 FF installed.
[06:41] <DWonderly> Eh... I'm good.
[09:53]  * gnomefreak not very happy. we decided dto wait until november to go. she had an emergency at work.
[09:54] <eagles0513875> :(
[09:55] <eagles0513875> morning gnomefreak
[09:55] <eagles0513875> added some more extensions to the wiki should finish them up this afternoon
[09:55] <micahg> sorry gnomefreak
[09:55]  * gnomefreak has a stupid question. why is flashgot on the extension review list?
[09:55] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: saw that
[09:55] <eagles0513875> gnomefreak: it had ~ubuntu-dev
[09:55] <gnomefreak> its ok micahg  thanks
[09:55] <eagles0513875> and it wasnt on there to keep track of what was done to it
[09:56] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: its not in the repos until next release. i will look at it today to update the branch
[09:57] <eagles0513875> ok gnomefreak
[09:57] <eagles0513875> gnomefreak: is ffshowcase for next release as well cuz thats on there but couldnt file a bug against it
[09:58] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: its ok just file it after the syncing from debian, assuming it was pushed to Debian as a new extension
[09:58] <eagles0513875> ok well let me just get everything sorted and bugs filed for what i can
[09:59]  * gnomefreak filed a bug o thursday IIRC im now just getting email telling me i fil;ed it
[10:00] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: cool thanks for the work on the wiki. BTW extension fixes that we are doing take one let us know and try it as it is simple to do
[10:02] <eagles0513875> there are a few that are assigned to me
[10:02] <eagles0513875> so might give it a go once they are all reported
[10:02] <eagles0513875> also need to setup my gpg key on my vm
[10:03] <eagles0513875> gnomefreak: right now im fighting with karmic and getting x to work with my video card
[10:03] <eagles0513875> otherwise im stuck in a tty console
[10:03] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: ok for the table leave the assigned box empty (keep the space open) so we know what has and hasnt been done.
[10:03] <eagles0513875> i am leaving everything blank
[10:03] <eagles0513875> if anyone works on anythign they can make the necessary changes
[10:03] <gnomefreak> ok
[10:04] <gnomefreak> leave bug # for them if you filed them. i also added a few things to the list you might want to add to bug reports but i will look it at today sometime after email
[10:09] <eagles0513875> ok
[10:31] <andv> good morning
[10:31] <andv> gnomefreak, do we keep mozgest in sync with debian?
[10:32] <andv> gnomefreak, because mozgest should be merged from debian from what I see
[10:32] <andv> a new revision got uploaded there
[10:33] <gnomefreak> andv: i dont understand this. unless a new version of it than sync is best. but since we have the package in our repos we fix our stuff in Ubuntu than wait for sync from thier package. if i understood
[10:34] <andv> gnomefreak, http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/m/mozilla-mozgest/mozilla-mozgest_1.5.2-6/changelog
[10:34] <andv> read latest
[10:34] <gnomefreak> andv: i also added a few things to what we need to look for. like standard version version
[10:34] <andv> gnomefreak, you should update your lintian then with those new standards
[10:35] <gnomefreak> looking but for some reason my system is slow
[10:36] <gnomefreak> andv: what do you mean. i thought lintain did check standards version. i change it before lintian run.
[10:36] <eagles0513875> andv: will finish up the rest of that stuff this afternoon for the wiki :) and will give it a shot fixing and packaging for you guys
[10:37] <gnomefreak> im guessing newest version of standards version in debian is 3.8.2 but should be 3.8.3
[10:37] <gnomefreak> !info mozilla-mozgest
[10:38] <gnomefreak> our version is newer than theirs. they have 1.5.2-6
[10:38] <andv> eagles0513875, great
[10:38] <andv> gnomefreak, yeah, true
[10:38] <andv> gnomefreak, so we won't keep in sync then :)
[10:39] <andv> gnomefreak, one more question
[10:39] <andv> gnomefreak, I saw you made a change directly into the install.rdf file
[10:39] <andv> gnomefreak, in greasemonkey
[10:39] <andv> gnomefreak, is that ok? or you should use a patch system?
[10:39] <gnomefreak> andv: at least i think sync is bad idea for alot of ours unless we update it than push to debian so they catch up on versions
[10:40] <gnomefreak> andv: i did? ah it was a while ago. IIRC it was to update support for FF
[10:40] <eagles0513875> andv: question for ya is ffshowcase a new extension
[10:40] <andv> eagles0513875, dunno
[10:41] <gnomefreak> andv: we can use patch but it is easier to just change it. or we ask upstream to change it
[10:41] <andv> if it doesnt exists in the archive, then yes
[10:41] <gnomefreak> eagles0513875: is that the exact name of it?
[10:41] <eagles0513875> ya let me link ya
[10:41] <gnomefreak> !info ffshowcase
[10:41] <andv> !ffshow
[10:41] <gnomefreak> push it to unstable we will sync it
[10:41] <andv> !info ffshow
[10:41] <gnomefreak> if its not in repos
[10:41] <andv> !info ffcase
[10:41] <eagles0513875> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-dev/firefox-extensions/ffshowcase.ubuntu
[10:41] <eagles0513875> !ffshowcase
[10:42] <andv> let me see
[10:42]  * gnomefreak looking
[10:42] <eagles0513875> lp wasnt finding it cuz it doesnt seem to be published there so i could update the bug
[10:42] <gnomefreak> it looks like it should have been in repos
[10:42] <andv> !info firefox-showcase
[10:42] <andv> here it is
[10:43] <eagles0513875> blarg no offense uniformity is needed in naming these branches
[10:43] <gnomefreak> ah :) that should be added to the wiki
[10:43] <andv> gnomefreak, usually it's nice to use a patch system to change source files
[10:43] <eagles0513875> its there
[10:43] <eagles0513875> but as ffshowcase gnomefreak
[10:43] <eagles0513875> will have to fix it now but i have to head to church
[10:44] <andv> eagles0513875, ok, np
[10:44] <gnomefreak> andv: i can see why. maybe we should i just need to figure out how to patch it. i havent made a patch in a long long time
[10:45] <andv> gnomefreak, http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/index.php?view=use_dpatch
[10:45] <andv> gnomefreak, I gonna review / sponsor mozgest
[10:45] <gnomefreak> the extensions dont use quilt?
[10:45] <gnomefreak> andv: thanks
[10:45] <andv> gnomefreak, don't know
[10:45] <andv> didnt check
[10:49] <gnomefreak> hmmmmm this looks just need a standard name for patch. im thinking we should add a block to wiki for done or in progress ect... but just one box that way we know who is doing what.
[11:01] <gnomefreak> !restricted
[11:03] <andv> gnomefreak, pushed
[11:04] <andv> gnomefreak, please update the wiki page accordingly
[11:04] <andv> gnomefreak, e.g adding works with ff3.5
[11:04] <andv> no extra license
[11:04] <andv> and so on
[11:04] <gnomefreak> andv: thanks. i will but we need a named patch first. i would like to add the file to wiki but not sure how to do that.
[11:05] <andv> add the file'
[11:05] <andv> ?
[11:06] <gnomefreak> andv: add the patch to wiki so whom ever is working on it can just download it and add it. or we host it somewhere else and point them to it
[11:06] <gnomefreak> andv: not sure what you did to remove the extra license
[11:09] <andv> gnomefreak, nothing, wasnt needed
[11:09] <gnomefreak> you removed it. did you do it by hand? i dont recall what extension it was off hand
[11:09] <andv> gnomefreak, read the wiki page
[11:10] <andv> one of the points is the license stuff
[11:10] <andv> it was ubuntu-it-menu
[11:10] <andv> I guess
[11:11] <gnomefreak> MOZ_XPI_DOCUMENTED_LICENSE_FILES?
[11:11] <gnomefreak> what is that
[11:11] <andv> yes
[11:11] <andv> a new m-d feature
[11:12] <andv> it allows you to remove extra license files from the tree
[11:12] <gnomefreak> how do you use it?
[11:12] <gnomefreak> and i hope it shows you what you are removing so you know that it did something :)
[11:13] <andv> MOZ_XPI_DOCUMENTED_LICENSE_FILES := License.foo
[11:13] <andv> no, it doesnt give an output
[11:13] <andv> if i remember it right
[11:13] <andv> you need to check final package
[11:13] <andv> to see if it got removed
[11:13] <gnomefreak> you have to find the extra file and run that on each extra license file
[11:13] <gnomefreak> ?
[11:14] <gnomefreak> lintian will warn me at least?
[11:14] <andv> if the license file didnt got removed lintian will warn yo
[11:14] <andv> usually you find this out by running lintian at .changes file
[11:14] <andv> then you find out the extra license file name
[11:14] <andv> and you remove it
[11:14] <gnomefreak> andv: ok cool. so lintian will warn me
[11:16] <gnomefreak> ok ill try it. i need to figure out how im going to get people to the patch. cant add full output of patch.
[11:27] <gnomefreak> why is the version of flashgot in repos higher than our changes. it was new upstream but not in changelog
[11:28] <gnomefreak> ok so it was after we did our changes im guessing
[11:30] <gnomefreak> flashgot should never have been pushed to repos. we really need people to tell us when playing with extension IMHO. so what should be dne in this case. im guessing they didnt push to debian either
[11:33] <andv> gnomefreak, flashgot got pushed to unstable
[11:33] <andv> only
[11:34] <gnomefreak> andv: why is it in our repos
[11:34] <gnomefreak> flashblock: Installed: (none) Candidate: 1.3.14~a2+snapshot20090627-0ubuntu1
[11:34] <andv> let me check
[11:36] <andv> gnomefreak, you are confusing flashgot with flashblock
[11:36] <andv> gnomefreak, https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashgot
[11:36] <andv> no releases in ubuntu
[11:36] <andv> !info flashgot
[11:36] <andv> !info flashblock
[11:38] <gnomefreak> upstream is now at 1.5.11.2 was it flashgot that got pushed to unstable? im looking
[11:39] <andv> gnomefreak, yes
[11:39] <gnomefreak> we pushed flashgot to debian unstable
[11:39] <andv> yes
[11:40] <gnomefreak> im guessing we should update it make our changes and push?
[11:40] <andv> ubuntu has no flashgot package
[11:40] <andv> it will get into the archive at karmic+1
[11:40] <andv> i gues
[11:40] <andv> coz now it will need an FFe
[11:41] <gnomefreak> andv: right. but do we update flashblock and make our changes?
[11:41] <andv> gnomefreak, are you talking about flashGOT or flashBLOCK?
[11:41] <gnomefreak> flashgot i guess we wait unless you can get a FFe
[11:41] <andv> gnomefreak, we won't upload it into karmic
[11:42] <andv> gnomefreak, we gonna keep it in sync
[11:42] <andv> with debian
[11:42] <andv> so no changes here
[11:42] <gnomefreak> flash block == needs update  flashgot == needs Ffe or wait until Karmic+1
[11:42] <andv> didnt touch flashblock
[11:42] <andv> if you want to update it
[11:42] <andv> it's ok
[11:43] <gnomefreak> im guessing we should since our changes are not there. do you have ubuntu-dev branch fo rit handy i will work off of that
[11:43] <andv> gnomefreak, apt-get source flashblock
[11:43] <andv> work from there
[11:43] <andv> gnomefreak, please remove flashgot from the wiki
[11:43] <andv> is not needed there
[11:44] <gnomefreak> ok thats easy enough.  ok will remove it
[11:45] <andv> gnomefreak, thunderbird should be removed from depends right?
[11:46] <gnomefreak> andv: what package? if flashgot maybe i dont remember why we kept them (i)
[11:46] <andv> gnomefreak, imagezoom
[11:46] <andv> gnomefreak, Depends: firefox | abrowser | firefox-3.0 | firefox-2 | thunderbird
[11:47] <andv> plus it has in debian/rules:
[11:47] <andv> MOZ_XPI_MOZILLA_DIRS := firefox-addons firefox thunderbird
[11:47] <gnomefreak> oh nothing we touched yet.
[11:47] <andv> i guess firefox-addon + firefox have to be removed
[11:47] <andv> yeah, I gonna review imagezoom that's why I asked
[11:47] <gnomefreak> shit i forgot about rules :(
[11:48] <andv> gnomefreak, luckily mozgest don't have that field
[11:48] <andv> ^^
[11:48] <gnomefreak> andv: i guess xpi:depends will handle that. if it has another source in control that depends on tbird maybe we should leave tbird there
[11:48] <gnomefreak> :) but some might
[11:49] <gnomefreak> that means i need to look over what i have and maybe add another revsion to branch for it
[11:49] <andv> I guess xpi:depends should take ff stuff only
[11:50] <gnomefreak> andv: i was thinking xpi:depends used the install.rdf for deps but i am not sure
[11:50] <andv> gnomefreak, don't need to make a patch for grasemonkey
[11:50] <andv> I saw asa*c doing that without using a patch
[11:50] <andv> with flashgot
[11:50] <gnomefreak> andv: so no patch just do them by hand?
[11:50] <andv> yep
[11:51] <andv> gnomefreak, MOZ_XPI_MOZILLA_DIRS := firefox-addons firefox thunderbird should have thunderbird only
[11:51] <andv> in rules
[11:51] <gnomefreak> i had already done flashgot install.rdf
[11:51] <andv> k
[11:51] <andv> greasemonkey
[11:51] <andv> was
[11:51] <gnomefreak> andv: and icedove i guess
[11:51] <andv> yes
[11:51] <andv> tb e icedove
[11:53] <gnomefreak> ok let me work on flashblock today i guess. im going to remove flashgot from list. just hope noone re adds it
[11:53] <andv> yep
[11:53] <andv> going out for lunch
[11:53] <andv> bbl
[11:54] <gnomefreak> ok
[12:42]  * gnomefreak gone
[14:24] <andv> eagles0513875, when you get back, please open the bug against firefox-showcase
[14:25] <andv> the wiki page gets broken cause no bug ID is added there
[14:39] <bdrung> andv: MOZ_XPI_MOZILLA_DIRS is deprecated
[14:40] <andv> bdrung, we still use it for tbird and icedove
[14:40] <bdrung> ok
[14:55] <eagles0513875> andv: will do
[14:57] <andv> eagles0513875, ty
[14:59] <eagles0513875> no problem m8
[15:39] <eagles0513875> andv: i believe edge is down if im not mistaken :(
[15:39] <eagles0513875> nm
[15:39] <andv> ?
[15:39] <andv> you can't use edge
[15:41] <eagles0513875> ya sry
[15:41] <eagles0513875> for some reason as i am filing an unrelated bug it was trying to take me to edge
[15:41] <eagles0513875> redirect me there
[15:41] <eagles0513875> but i disabled the redirection
[16:10] <BUGabundo> howdy
[16:10] <BUGabundo> fta: you now uploading to NM PPA?
[16:35] <ikonia> disabled redirection, redirection is done on the server
[16:36] <BUGabundo> hey ikonia
[18:49] <fta> hi
[18:49] <fta> BUGabundo, yes, on behalf of asac
[18:49] <BUGabundo> ok
[18:50] <fta> chromium-browser                 12212   1.00%      1045    5163    6002       2
[18:50] <fta> 1% \o/
[18:50] <BUGabundo> ehh
[18:50] <BUGabundo> so now you stop ?
[18:51] <fta> that was the idea
[18:51] <fta> midori                           12368   1.01%       400   11066     897       5
[18:51] <fta> next target to eay
[18:51] <fta> eat
[18:51] <fta> should be a formality
[18:52] <fta> next will be:
[18:52] <fta> galeon                           27622   2.25%      1428   25815     375       4
[18:52] <fta> should take a while
[18:52] <bdrung> how should i call the MOZ_XPI_? variable wich has this description: set this variable to 1, if the source tar ball contains the xpi file and the xpi file will not be build from source
[18:54] <fta> no idea, i don't understand why we package stuff without sources
[18:55] <bdrung> fta: i don't like it, too. but there are packages like firebug. it's better to have ${xpi:Recommends} for them, too.
[18:56] <fta> asac, ^^ why are we doing that?
[18:56] <bdrung> fta: the extensions are often only javascript. we synced them from debian.
[19:08] <fta> asac, http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31752316/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.xulrunner-1.9.3_1.9.3~a1~hg20090913r32436%2Bnobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[20:10] <bdrung> asac: mozilla-devscripts is ready for release
[20:11] <bdrung> asac: if we allow uploads by debian-maintaintainers, then i can do it in the future, too.
[21:45] <andv> bdrung, just add the tag