[00:10] <fta> kenvandine, Title: gwibber-daemon assert failure: python: ../../src/xcb_io.c:242: process_responses: Assertion `(((long) (dpy->last_request_read) - (long) (dpy->request)) <= 0)' failed.
[05:57] <EruditeHermit> hey
[05:57] <EruditeHermit> has anyone packaged gnash 0.8.6 for karmic?
[07:58] <eagles0513875> asac: managed to get passed them
[10:09] <eagles0513875> hey guys  i know yall are probably outa the office as its sunday but what is the bzr link to firefox 3.5 as i woudl like to test bindwood with the latest version that is in bzr as the one in the repos on my duelboot bindwood doesnt seem to work with devscripts 0.16
[10:10] <micahg> bzr link to 3.5?
[10:11] <eagles0513875> ya
[10:11] <eagles0513875> when i do sudo apt-get source it tells me this
[10:11] <micahg> isn't bindwood an extension?
[10:12] <eagles0513875> it gives me notice of where that ff 3.5 is maintained in the bzr revision control system and gives me a link and how to get it but when i use bzr get and the link it throws an error
[10:12] <eagles0513875> micahg: ya im in the process of testing it as i am helping asac and gnomefreak and andv with them
[10:12] <micahg> I still don't get why you need the source
[10:13] <eagles0513875> micahg: would like to see if there were any fixes or enhancements to it that will allow bindwood to work with devscripts version 0.16
[10:13] <eagles0513875> with 0.15 it works fine but asac wants all extensions to use 0.16 now
[10:13] <micahg> but what does that have to do with ff35 source/
[10:14] <eagles0513875> micahg: im wondering if there were any changed that have been made to 3.5 since it was added to the karmic repos
[10:14] <eagles0513875> that might allow for bindwood to work with version 0.16 of devscripts
[10:14] <micahg> hmm
[10:15] <micahg> do you just want the changelog?
[10:15] <micahg> source is lp:firefox/3.5
[10:15] <micahg> but i don't see why you would need it
[10:15] <micahg> you can either try the dailies if you want to test the extension in the latest 3.5
[10:16] <micahg> or use the karmic version which is the latest release version
[10:16] <eagles0513875> ok strange then :(
[10:16] <micahg> I thought devscripts was just for building the package
[10:16] <eagles0513875> cuz i am using latest ff version on a duel boot i have on my laptop and it doesnt work with 0.16 but with 0.15
[10:16] <eagles0513875> micahg: im new to this so i dunno
[10:17] <eagles0513875> will talk to asac tomorrow about it
[10:17] <eagles0513875> whois deathvalley
[10:17] <eagles0513875> whoops
[10:18] <micahg> yeah, I think the packaging for the extension would need to be modified to work with the later devscripts library
[10:18] <micahg> but yeah, check with asac
[10:18] <eagles0513875> will do im guessing hes outa the office since its sunday
[11:16] <asac> eagles0513875: why do you think it doesnt work with 0.16?
[11:16] <eagles0513875> on my laptop it doesnt pop up asking me for a password like 0.15 devscripts being used did
[11:17] <asac> ffox has nothing to do with it
[11:17] <eagles0513875> ok
[11:17] <asac> eagles0513875: i dont understand that question.
[11:17] <asac> eagles0513875: i mozilla-devscripts doesnt ask for any password
[11:17] <eagles0513875> im saying bindwood itself
[11:17] <asac> you probably get asked when building or when pushing
[11:17] <asac> but thats not m-devscripty
[11:17] <asac> its just a) signing the package with your gpg key
[11:17] <eagles0513875> noooo
[11:17] <eagles0513875> ur not understanding me
[11:17] <asac> thats obvious
[11:18] <eagles0513875> i installed bindwood with 0.15 first time it worked when i loaded ff after installing it  bindwood with ff running asked me for a password, for which im guessing is to access the couchdb
[11:18] <eagles0513875> once i upgraded it to use 0.16 which i got from the upstream repo and installed and after packaging it and installing it it didnt seem to work
[11:19] <asac> eagles0513875: what did you do to upgrade to 0.16?
[11:19] <eagles0513875> asac: upgraded it in the control file
[11:19] <asac> what changes did you do to the packaging
[11:19] <asac> eagles0513875: ok. so do you have mozilla-devscripts 0.16 installed at all?
[11:19] <eagles0513875> yes i do
[11:20] <eagles0513875> asac: nothing no changes to the packaging what was the command again to package
[11:20] <eagles0513875> bzr md or something
[11:20] <asac> eagles0513875: ok. so you have mozilla-devscipts 0.16 installed
[11:20] <asac> and how did you build?
[11:20] <eagles0513875> yes i do
[11:20] <eagles0513875> i am drawing a blank on the command at the moment
[11:20] <asac> eagles0513875: have you pushed you bindwood branch somewhere?
[11:20] <asac> so i can take a look?
[11:21] <eagles0513875> ya i have its to bzr to eagles051387
[11:21] <eagles0513875> asac: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~eagles051387/firefox-extensions/bindwood.ubuntu.lp425631
[11:22] <eagles0513875> asac: the only logical thing i can think of is something has changed in the devscripts from 0.15 to 0.16
[11:22] <asac> eagles0513875: please run bzr bd --dont-purge
[11:22] <asac> that builds your extension
[11:22] <asac> then go to the ../build-area/bindwood*/
[11:22] <asac> directory
[11:22] <eagles0513875> when i built it i ran a simple bzr bd
[11:23] <asac> yes. use --dont-purge
[11:23] <asac> so the build tree is not removed
[11:23] <asac> after building and we can check whats going on there
[11:23] <eagles0513875> ok let me grab me laptop
[11:26] <eagles0513875> thought u were outa the office today asac
[11:26] <asac> i am out
[11:26] <asac> just checking
[11:26] <eagles0513875> ahhh ok
[11:26] <asac> eagles0513875: mozilla-devscripts is not in ubuntu yet. so please double check with dpkg -l mozilla-devscripts
[11:26] <asac> that you have that version installed
[11:26] <asac> 0.16 that is
[11:26] <eagles0513875> ok
[11:26] <eagles0513875> apt-cache policy showed i had 0.16 and the candidate was 0.16
[11:27] <asac> are you on debian?
[11:27] <eagles0513875> no
[11:27] <asac>  -> https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mozilla-devscripts
[11:27] <asac> there is no 0.16 in the official repos
[11:27] <eagles0513875> was give the link ot the upstream page of 0.16 so i could download the deb from upstream
[11:27] <asac> so you must have gotten itsomewhere else
[11:27] <asac> ah
[11:27] <asac> ok
[11:28] <eagles0513875> 0.16 is installed
[11:28] <asac> k
[11:28] <asac> so do what i said above
[11:28] <asac> with --dont-purge
[11:28] <eagles0513875> running it now
[11:28] <asac> ok
[11:28] <asac> so after it finishes
[11:28] <asac> the build tree should be in ../build-area
[11:28] <asac> confirm that you have that dir
[11:28] <eagles0513875> ok
[11:29] <eagles0513875> in the bindwood-0.2..... folder
[11:29] <asac> ok
[11:29] <asac> is there a .build file next to that bindwood-0.2 folder?
[11:29] <asac> and a .deb?
[11:30] <eagles0513875> ya a deb is in my home folder
[11:30] <asac> no
[11:30] <asac> please go to the build-area
[11:30] <asac> and run ls
[11:30] <asac> what do you have there?
[11:30] <eagles0513875> ahhh ya i do have a deb in there sry
[11:31] <asac> ls
[11:31] <asac> anything else?
[11:31] <asac> a .build file?
[11:31] <eagles0513875> a ya there is a build file
[11:32] <asac> so install the .deb that is there
[11:32] <eagles0513875> ok
[11:32] <asac> sudo dpkg -i bindwood*.deb
[11:33] <eagles0513875> reinstalling
[11:33] <asac> eagles0513875: ok
[11:33] <eagles0513875> installed
[11:33] <asac> eagles0513875: so after that also install the pastebinit package through apt-get
[11:33] <eagles0513875> will give it another try
[11:33] <asac> that helps
[11:33] <asac> ok
[11:33] <asac> but install pastebinit
[11:33] <asac> we will need it often if we want to check things out
[11:34] <eagles0513875> got it already
[11:34] <asac> if you have it installed
[11:34] <asac> run
[11:34] <asac> dpkg -L bindwood | pastebinit
[11:34] <asac> and give me the past
[11:35] <eagles0513875> http://pastebin.com/f537e091c
[11:35] <asac> looks good
[11:36] <asac> so should work imo
[11:36] <asac> i assume you didnt figure that the .deb is in build-area ;)
[11:36] <eagles0513875> still didnt ask me for a password to access the couchdb
[11:36] <asac> eagles0513875: why would it?
[11:36] <asac> eagles0513875: you can easily test ...
[11:36] <asac> eagles0513875: start firefox with a fresh profile
[11:36] <eagles0513875> ahhh ok
[11:36] <asac> if you have your old bookmarks
[11:36] <asac> then all is ok
[11:36] <eagles0513875> ok
[11:37] <eagles0513875> which folder do i remove .mozilla
[11:37] <asac> eagles0513875: do you have anything important? like bookmarks/cookies/passwords you dont want to loose?
[11:37] <eagles0513875> no
[11:37] <asac> if you dont then just remove it
[11:37] <eagles0513875> nothing important
[11:37] <asac> yes
[11:37] <asac> eagles0513875: did you have chnaged the bookmarks at all?
[11:37] <eagles0513875> bookmarks aare gone which were of launchpad and the edge
[11:38] <asac> eagles0513875: do you see bindwood in tools -> addons -> extensions?
[11:38] <eagles0513875> yes and its enabled
[11:38] <asac> eagles0513875: is "unisntall" available?
[11:38] <asac> or just greyed out=
[11:38] <asac> ?
[11:38] <eagles0513875> greyed out atm
[11:38] <asac> ok
[11:38] <asac> yes. all if fine then
[11:39] <asac> eagles0513875: a few comments what is missing in your 0.16 transition
[11:39] <asac> add "Provides: ${xpi:Provides}" and "Enhances: ${xpi:Enhances}"
[11:39] <asac> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Karmic/ExtensionReview
[11:39] <asac> check that
[11:39] <asac> bdrung_ updated the checklist
[11:39] <eagles0513875> i know i havent gotten to that part of the check list
[11:39] <eagles0513875> yet
[11:39] <asac> ah ok
[11:39] <asac> so far all looks fine imo
[11:40] <eagles0513875> ok :)
[11:40] <eagles0513875> thought it was related to something else
[11:40] <eagles0513875> do provides and enhances go after recommends
[11:40] <asac> there is no rule, but in general they are after recommends/suggests
[11:40] <asac> but you can put them anywhere (except the first line needs to be Package: ...)
[11:41] <asac> besides that the order doesnt really matter ... besides from best practices.
[11:41] <eagles0513875> ahhh ok asac also do i need a new change log
[11:41] <eagles0513875> or just add to the one i have
[11:42] <asac> eagles0513875: i hope you are still at UNRELEASED
[11:42] <asac> that means just add to the current topmost
[11:42] <eagles0513875> ya i am
[11:42] <bdrung_> asac: http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=mozilla-devscripts
[11:42] <eagles0513875> so just add to that part of the changelog
[11:42] <bdrung_> asac: Package is optional and has a Depends on lsb-release which is extra
[11:42] <eagles0513875> asac: thats the link i was give for the 0.16 of devscripts
[11:43] <asac> bdrung_: yeah. is that RC?
[11:43] <eagles0513875> bdrung_: are you here if i have any questions or u outa the office today
[11:43] <asac> eagles0513875: thx. i know
[11:43] <bdrung_> asac: dunno, but i want to fix it.
[11:43]  * eagles0513875 lunchtime will be back
[11:44] <asac> bdrung_: sure go ahead. but i think its enough to stage it until next regular release ;)
[11:44] <bdrung_> eagles0513875: i am here, but i have to study
[11:44] <asac> eagles0513875: the checklist on the Review page is quite detailed
[11:44] <asac> eagles0513875: just try to do it and when done we can review everything
[11:44] <asac> thats better for the learning curve and makes it easier to help you
[11:44] <asac> eagles0513875: now that you know where to find the .deb you are ready for go i think
[11:45] <bdrung_> asac: i want to put the data for XPI_RECOMMENDS/CHECK_VERSION magic (which is distro specific) into a separate package
[11:46] <bdrung_> asac: what do you think?
[11:47] <bdrung_> asac: do you have a good name for this package?
[11:47] <asac> bdrung_: i dont know. i would prefer to maintain everything in one source package and use build-time magic to figure
[11:47] <asac> is there anything that speaks against that?
[11:47] <asac> actually i had scheduled a call with mvo to talk about what we can/cannot do on the builderes
[11:47] <asac> builders
[11:47] <asac> but that got pushed back because of beta rush
[11:48] <bdrung_> yes, if you want to backport
[11:48] <asac> backport?
[11:49] <asac> ah you say that you have to backport just data parts if that changes
[11:49] <bdrung_> if the data is in a separate package we can simply backport m-d. the data package would differ for sid, karmic, and lucid
[11:49] <asac> right.
[11:49] <asac> so here is the idea:
[11:49] <asac> its basically something like what i do for extensions
[11:50] <asac> err plugins
[11:50] <asac> adding custom headers to the extension hosts
[11:50] <asac> like: Xb-Moz-AppId: ....
[11:50] <asac> Xb-Moz-...
[11:50] <asac> so for firefox
[11:50] <asac> in the firefox-3.5 package: Xb-Moz-AppId: ....
[11:51] <asac> and Xb-Moz-Version: ...
[11:51] <asac> or something
[11:51] <asac> the main question is whether we get that info while preparing the sources for -devscripts
[11:51] <bdrung_> can we access this data on building?
[11:51] <asac> _or_ do it on the fly when the package is built
[11:51] <asac> i mean the extension package
[11:51] <asac> the latter is preferably if that works on builders
[11:51] <asac> oetherwise the former is a safe bet
[11:52] <asac> and would probably match what we have with a separate data package
[11:52] <bdrung_> yes, that's the ideal solution
[11:52] <asac> just that it does not need to be maintained because the extension host apps just sign up for being listed there
[11:52] <asac> bdrung_: but during buildtime of extensions is really the best solution
[11:52] <asac> but for that i have to check whats possible on the builders with mvo ;)
[11:52] <asac> hence the call
[11:53] <asac> of course we have to agree on the headers needed ... but i thin that should more or less match what we currently maintain in the xpi.mk
[11:59] <asac> bdrung_: in ubufox there is some code in the pfs/ db directory that parses those special headers for plugins from arbitrary sources.lists
[12:00] <asac> e.g.in lp:ubufox
[12:00] <asac> its a bit different because i put stuff in a sqlite db
[12:00]  * bdrung_ clones it.
[12:00] <asac> as the plugin finder service runs as a webservice
[12:02] <asac> but it has the hacks required to run arbitrary sources.lists
[12:02] <asac> ;)
[12:06] <asac> also check this:
[12:06] <asac> flashplugin-nonfree-10.0.32.18ubuntu1$ grep Xb- debian/control
[12:06] <asac> Xb-Npp-Description: Adobe Flash SWF Player (http://www.adobe.com)
[12:06] <asac> Xb-Npp-File: libflashplayer.so
[12:06] <asac> Xb-Npp-Applications: ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384, 92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a, aa5ca914-c309-495d-91cf-3141bbb04115
[12:06] <asac> Xb-Npp-MimeType: application/x-shockwave-flash
[12:07] <asac> Xb-Npp-Name: Adobe Flash Player (installer)
[12:07] <asac> bdrung_: ^^
[12:07] <asac> thats how its done in the plugins control files
[12:07] <bdrung_> asac: should the extensions have such meta data, too?
[12:08] <asac> i dont think - so far
[12:08] <asac> but could be at some point ... especially if we want to improve ubufox
[12:08] <asac> to display packaged extensions in the "Get Extensions" ...
[12:08] <asac> but for the current stuff we seem to be able to figure everything we need during build from install.rdf etc.
[12:09] <bdrung_> asac: or we use the package name as indicator (all starting with xul-ext-)
[12:09] <asac> bdrung_: you mean to get a db of extensions?
[12:09] <bdrung_> yes
[12:09] <asac> would work.
[12:09] <asac> but we probably need more or different data
[12:10] <asac> like in the plugin finder case
[12:10] <asac> we cannot just use package description etc. because of the different UI constraints
[12:10] <bdrung_> asac: we can generate the required data with m-d
[12:10] <asac> bdrung_: if you click in the addons Get Extension dialog on the "Get Ubuntu extensions" link
[12:10] <asac> there is a special app-install dialog
[12:11] <asac> we maintain that info manually atm. could be improved like the plugin db at some point
[12:11] <asac> but we also need images etc. which makes it a bit hard
[12:12] <asac> hmmm that "Get Ubuntu Extensions" link seems to not work in karmic anymore
[12:12] <asac> maybe because of the software store thign
[12:12] <asac> have to check with mvo
[12:13] <asac> hmm. i dont even have that software store insatlled as it seems
[12:13] <asac> not in the menu anywhere
[12:14] <asac> hmm gnome-app-install --xul-extensions=firefox still works
[12:14] <asac> thats basically what i mean
[12:14] <asac> not sure why its broken in ubufox atm
[12:15] <bdrung_> asac: it is under anwendungen
[12:15] <asac> yes... but not for me ;)
[12:15] <bdrung_> asac: and it is now called software center ;)
[12:15] <asac> i have it direcetly in applications top level menu on my laptop
[12:15] <asac> but its not here ;)
[12:15] <asac> but i can run software-store
[12:15] <asac> on command line
[12:15] <asac> something fishy
[12:15] <asac> let me killall gnome-panel
[12:16] <asac> nope ... not there :/
[12:17] <asac> not even avail in edit menus
[12:19] <bdrung_> asac: is the pbuilder environment identical to the official builders
[12:19] <bdrung_> asac: it is gone im my kvm, too. some days ago it was there
[12:20] <asac> unlikely to be a reliable source for comparison
[12:20] <asac> oki so probably syntax issues in the .desktop file or something
[12:20] <bdrung_> asac: it is now under system -> systemverwaltung
[12:21] <asac> bug 435828
[12:21] <asac> yeah
[12:22] <asac> i would think nobody will find it there
[12:22] <asac> any nromal users stops reading after the first two entries i am sure
[12:27] <asac> oh i think it was added to panel too ;)
[12:27] <asac> and i removed it
[12:31] <bdrung_> asac: would this work? http://pastebin.com/f6f28a015
[12:32] <asac> no
[12:32] <asac> well.
[12:32] <asac> might work
[12:32] <asac> i think parsing the stuff using the apt api would be more flexible
[12:32] <bdrung_> in pbuilder environment it works
[12:33] <asac> ah
[12:33] <asac> problem is that you will not see stuff from universe in main packages etc.
[12:33] <asac> i would think
[12:33] <asac> i really have to talk to mvo ;)
[12:33] <asac> builders are black box for me
[12:34] <bdrung_> asac: k, let me know, if you have news
[12:34] <asac> yep
[12:34] <asac> i currently lean towards doing that on source production like in the pfs/db case
[12:34] <asac> but lets hope that we can do something during build
[12:37] <bdrung_> +1
[12:38] <av`> bdrung_, the hack didnt work for the patches
[12:38] <av`> it applied them *after* install
[12:39] <av`> we've fixed it another way
[12:39] <av`> ;)
[12:39] <bdrung_> av`: is there a difference before and after install?
[12:40] <av`> what's the point applying a patch after install?
[12:40] <av`> it gets applied then get removed automatically by the clean target
[12:41] <av`> without affecting the files effectively
[12:42] <bdrung_> av`: k, you have to go into debian/$package/usr/share/$extname/ and run patch there
[12:42] <av`> we did another way
[12:42] <av`> but it worked in the end
[12:42] <bdrung_> av`: and how?
[12:43] <av`> bdrung_, in the build rule we adapted the tree to be m-d compatible
[12:43] <av`> then in clean we repacked the orig
[12:43] <av`> to not differ from the one in the archive
[12:43] <bdrung_> wow
[12:43] <av`> so that dak wouldnt refuse it
[12:44] <av`> and it seems to work
[12:44] <av`> anyway I saw your email about mozgest
[12:44] <av`> want needs to be done?
[12:45] <bdrung_> me or you?
[12:45] <av`> both
[12:46] <bdrung_> i should study, but yes
[12:46] <av`> did you push mozgest to git already?
[12:47] <bdrung_> yes
[12:47] <av`> ok
[12:54] <av`> bdrung_, I guess removing config dialogue won't be done
[12:55] <bdrung_> then at least in ubuntu :p
[12:55] <av`> lol
[12:55] <bdrung_> av`: it will not removed, it will only not beeing pop uped.
[12:55] <av`> yeah, that's what I meant
[12:56] <bdrung_> let's see if someone complains
[12:59] <av`> any news for the uploaders thing?
[13:03] <bdrung_> not yet. asac do not like it very much (the control.in part)
[13:03] <bdrung_> av`: i have looked how the gnome-devs did it
[13:03] <bdrung_> av`: i could implement it
[13:03] <av`> why he don't like the control.in thing?
[13:04] <av`> control.in gets the control autogenerated at clean / debuild run
[13:04] <av`> so what's wrong with it
[13:04] <bdrung_> because you have two control files?
[13:04] <av`> so?
[13:04] <bdrung_> av`: ask him directly
[13:05] <bdrung_> av`: gnome-devs only add the persons who are in debian/changelog _and_ are in the list to the uploaders
[13:06] <av`> bdrung_, yes
[13:06] <av`> bdrung_, can you fix the possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration thing and maybe write something more to debian.source?
[13:06] <av`> and then upload mozgest
[13:07] <bdrung_> dunno how to fix possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
[13:08] <bdrung_> what should i write to debian.source?
[13:08] <av`> we should create two scripts, one for adding other for removing
[13:09] <av`> but I don't think it's necessary
[13:09] <av`> readme.debian sorry
[13:09] <av`> you said it needs a face lifting, don't know what you meant ther
[13:09] <av`> * there
[13:11] <bdrung_> formatting
[13:11] <av`> want me to do it or ...?
[13:11] <bdrung_> yes, you
[13:12] <av`> ok
[13:12] <av`> then should be ready
[13:12] <bdrung_> av`: you should upload it (i would need a sponsor)
[13:13] <av`> ok
[13:17] <av`> bdrung_, what's wrong with readme.debian?
[13:17] <av`> looks formatted correctly
[13:30] <bdrung_> av`: the header and the sharps and max. 80 chars/line
[13:31] <av`> I don't it's a problem since you parse them using a terminal
[13:31] <av`> is ok to rename the binary to xul-ext-mozgest?
[13:32] <av`> bdrung_, ^^
[13:33] <bdrung_> av`: yes, we agreed that we use xul-ext-, didn't we?
[13:35] <bdrung_> av`: it think this looks better: http://paste.ubuntu.com/279553/
[13:37] <bdrung_> av`: or better http://paste.ubuntu.com/279556/
[13:39] <av`> bdrung_, yes
[13:39] <av`> bdrung_, gonna commit now
[17:29] <fta> kenvandine, http://paste.ubuntu.com/279755/
[19:31] <micahg> hi BUGabundo
[19:31] <BUGabundo> hey micahg
[19:31] <micahg> just switched to Firefox 3.6 and apparently, it's more stable than 3.5
[19:31] <micahg> especially with flash
[19:33] <BUGabundo> 3.7 seem betterish
[19:33] <BUGabundo> and finally I fixed my crashs
[19:33] <BUGabundo> stupid xmarks
[19:34] <micahg> well, I prefer fairly stable :)
[19:34] <micahg> 3.6 branch is only accepting tested patches :)
[19:37] <BUGabundo> I have no probs with 3.7
[19:37] <BUGabundo> right now, I can't file ANY bug on it
[19:37] <BUGabundo> that's HOW stable it looks to me
[19:38] <BUGabundo> ok, maybe one, but its addon related
[19:38] <micahg> Do you get white menus?
[19:38] <BUGabundo> nope
[19:38]  * BUGabundo tests
[19:39] <BUGabundo> nope
[19:39] <micahg> when you click on a menu, the menu title isn't white?
[19:39] <BUGabundo> they all refresh as expected
[19:39] <BUGabundo> enh???
[19:39] <micahg> enh?
[19:40] <micahg> mozilla bug 316780?
[19:43] <BUGabundo> you better isntall 3.7 and test for you self
[19:43] <BUGabundo> I don't seem to be able to reproduce it
[19:44] <micahg> I have the same issue on firefox 3.7
[19:45] <BUGabundo> maybe I have an addon too much :)
[19:45] <micahg> you're using the mozilla dailies?
[19:46] <micahg> it's in safe mode as well
[19:46] <BUGabundo> sorry
[19:46] <BUGabundo> either I'm not reading it right
[19:46] <BUGabundo> or I don't see it
[19:50] <micahg> I'm waiting for Mozilla to kick out the beta so we can get it into karmic
[19:51] <BUGabundo> lol
[20:46] <av`> fta, do you work on some ffox extensions as well?
[23:32] <bdrung_> asac: go to #debian-mozext on oftc!
[23:32] <bdrung_> av`: ^ :)
[23:32] <av`> :)
[23:32] <av`> bdrung_, when you have a minute please commit something
[23:33] <av`> wanna see if the hooks for git works
[23:33] <av`> and we get the logs
[23:33] <av`> on the channel
[23:33] <mac_v> !logs
[23:33] <av`> mac_v, ?
[23:34] <mac_v> av`: oh! you were talking about logs too...didnt notice :) i wanted the link for the log..
[23:34] <av`> :D