[00:10] 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. === fenris__ is now known as ejat === pace_t_zulu_ is now known as pace_t_zulu [05:57] hey [05:57] has anyone packaged gnash 0.8.6 for karmic? [07:58] asac: managed to get passed them === asac_ is now known as asac [10:09] 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] bzr link to 3.5? [10:11] ya [10:11] when i do sudo apt-get source it tells me this [10:11] isn't bindwood an extension? [10:12] 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] micahg: ya im in the process of testing it as i am helping asac and gnomefreak and andv with them [10:12] I still don't get why you need the source [10:13] 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] with 0.15 it works fine but asac wants all extensions to use 0.16 now [10:13] but what does that have to do with ff35 source/ [10:14] 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] that might allow for bindwood to work with version 0.16 of devscripts [10:14] hmm [10:15] do you just want the changelog? [10:15] source is lp:firefox/3.5 [10:15] but i don't see why you would need it [10:15] you can either try the dailies if you want to test the extension in the latest 3.5 [10:16] or use the karmic version which is the latest release version [10:16] ok strange then :( [10:16] I thought devscripts was just for building the package [10:16] 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] micahg: im new to this so i dunno [10:17] will talk to asac tomorrow about it [10:17] whois deathvalley [10:17] whoops [10:18] yeah, I think the packaging for the extension would need to be modified to work with the later devscripts library [10:18] but yeah, check with asac [10:18] will do im guessing hes outa the office since its sunday [11:16] eagles0513875: why do you think it doesnt work with 0.16? [11:16] on my laptop it doesnt pop up asking me for a password like 0.15 devscripts being used did [11:17] ffox has nothing to do with it [11:17] ok [11:17] eagles0513875: i dont understand that question. [11:17] eagles0513875: i mozilla-devscripts doesnt ask for any password [11:17] im saying bindwood itself [11:17] you probably get asked when building or when pushing [11:17] but thats not m-devscripty [11:17] its just a) signing the package with your gpg key [11:17] noooo [11:17] ur not understanding me [11:17] thats obvious [11:18] 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] 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] eagles0513875: what did you do to upgrade to 0.16? [11:19] asac: upgraded it in the control file [11:19] what changes did you do to the packaging [11:19] eagles0513875: ok. so do you have mozilla-devscripts 0.16 installed at all? [11:19] yes i do [11:20] asac: nothing no changes to the packaging what was the command again to package [11:20] bzr md or something [11:20] eagles0513875: ok. so you have mozilla-devscipts 0.16 installed [11:20] and how did you build? [11:20] yes i do [11:20] i am drawing a blank on the command at the moment [11:20] eagles0513875: have you pushed you bindwood branch somewhere? [11:20] so i can take a look? [11:21] ya i have its to bzr to eagles051387 [11:21] asac: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~eagles051387/firefox-extensions/bindwood.ubuntu.lp425631 [11:22] asac: the only logical thing i can think of is something has changed in the devscripts from 0.15 to 0.16 [11:22] eagles0513875: please run bzr bd --dont-purge [11:22] that builds your extension [11:22] then go to the ../build-area/bindwood*/ [11:22] directory [11:22] when i built it i ran a simple bzr bd [11:23] yes. use --dont-purge [11:23] so the build tree is not removed [11:23] after building and we can check whats going on there [11:23] ok let me grab me laptop [11:26] thought u were outa the office today asac [11:26] i am out [11:26] just checking [11:26] ahhh ok [11:26] eagles0513875: mozilla-devscripts is not in ubuntu yet. so please double check with dpkg -l mozilla-devscripts [11:26] that you have that version installed [11:26] 0.16 that is [11:26] ok [11:26] apt-cache policy showed i had 0.16 and the candidate was 0.16 [11:27] are you on debian? [11:27] no [11:27] -> https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mozilla-devscripts [11:27] there is no 0.16 in the official repos [11:27] was give the link ot the upstream page of 0.16 so i could download the deb from upstream [11:27] so you must have gotten itsomewhere else [11:27] ah [11:27] ok [11:28] 0.16 is installed [11:28] k [11:28] so do what i said above [11:28] with --dont-purge [11:28] running it now [11:28] ok [11:28] so after it finishes [11:28] the build tree should be in ../build-area [11:28] confirm that you have that dir [11:28] ok [11:29] in the bindwood-0.2..... folder [11:29] ok [11:29] is there a .build file next to that bindwood-0.2 folder? [11:29] and a .deb? [11:30] ya a deb is in my home folder [11:30] no [11:30] please go to the build-area [11:30] and run ls [11:30] what do you have there? [11:30] ahhh ya i do have a deb in there sry [11:31] ls [11:31] anything else? [11:31] a .build file? [11:31] a ya there is a build file [11:32] so install the .deb that is there [11:32] ok [11:32] sudo dpkg -i bindwood*.deb [11:33] reinstalling [11:33] eagles0513875: ok [11:33] installed [11:33] eagles0513875: so after that also install the pastebinit package through apt-get [11:33] will give it another try [11:33] that helps [11:33] ok [11:33] but install pastebinit [11:33] we will need it often if we want to check things out [11:34] got it already [11:34] if you have it installed [11:34] run [11:34] dpkg -L bindwood | pastebinit [11:34] and give me the past [11:35] http://pastebin.com/f537e091c [11:35] looks good [11:36] so should work imo [11:36] i assume you didnt figure that the .deb is in build-area ;) [11:36] still didnt ask me for a password to access the couchdb [11:36] eagles0513875: why would it? [11:36] eagles0513875: you can easily test ... [11:36] eagles0513875: start firefox with a fresh profile [11:36] ahhh ok [11:36] if you have your old bookmarks [11:36] then all is ok [11:36] ok [11:37] which folder do i remove .mozilla [11:37] eagles0513875: do you have anything important? like bookmarks/cookies/passwords you dont want to loose? [11:37] no [11:37] if you dont then just remove it [11:37] nothing important [11:37] yes [11:37] eagles0513875: did you have chnaged the bookmarks at all? [11:37] bookmarks aare gone which were of launchpad and the edge [11:38] eagles0513875: do you see bindwood in tools -> addons -> extensions? [11:38] yes and its enabled [11:38] eagles0513875: is "unisntall" available? [11:38] or just greyed out= [11:38] ? [11:38] greyed out atm [11:38] ok [11:38] yes. all if fine then [11:39] eagles0513875: a few comments what is missing in your 0.16 transition [11:39] add "Provides: ${xpi:Provides}" and "Enhances: ${xpi:Enhances}" [11:39] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Karmic/ExtensionReview [11:39] check that [11:39] bdrung_ updated the checklist [11:39] i know i havent gotten to that part of the check list [11:39] yet [11:39] ah ok [11:39] so far all looks fine imo [11:40] ok :) [11:40] thought it was related to something else [11:40] do provides and enhances go after recommends [11:40] there is no rule, but in general they are after recommends/suggests [11:40] but you can put them anywhere (except the first line needs to be Package: ...) [11:41] besides that the order doesnt really matter ... besides from best practices. [11:41] ahhh ok asac also do i need a new change log [11:41] or just add to the one i have [11:42] eagles0513875: i hope you are still at UNRELEASED [11:42] that means just add to the current topmost [11:42] ya i am [11:42] asac: http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=mozilla-devscripts [11:42] so just add to that part of the changelog [11:42] asac: Package is optional and has a Depends on lsb-release which is extra [11:42] asac: thats the link i was give for the 0.16 of devscripts [11:43] bdrung_: yeah. is that RC? [11:43] bdrung_: are you here if i have any questions or u outa the office today [11:43] eagles0513875: thx. i know [11:43] asac: dunno, but i want to fix it. [11:43] * eagles0513875 lunchtime will be back [11:44] bdrung_: sure go ahead. but i think its enough to stage it until next regular release ;) [11:44] eagles0513875: i am here, but i have to study [11:44] eagles0513875: the checklist on the Review page is quite detailed [11:44] eagles0513875: just try to do it and when done we can review everything [11:44] thats better for the learning curve and makes it easier to help you [11:44] eagles0513875: now that you know where to find the .deb you are ready for go i think [11:45] asac: i want to put the data for XPI_RECOMMENDS/CHECK_VERSION magic (which is distro specific) into a separate package [11:46] asac: what do you think? [11:47] asac: do you have a good name for this package? [11:47] bdrung_: i dont know. i would prefer to maintain everything in one source package and use build-time magic to figure [11:47] is there anything that speaks against that? [11:47] actually i had scheduled a call with mvo to talk about what we can/cannot do on the builderes [11:47] builders [11:47] but that got pushed back because of beta rush [11:48] yes, if you want to backport [11:48] backport? [11:49] ah you say that you have to backport just data parts if that changes [11:49] 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] right. [11:49] so here is the idea: [11:49] its basically something like what i do for extensions [11:50] err plugins [11:50] adding custom headers to the extension hosts [11:50] like: Xb-Moz-AppId: .... [11:50] Xb-Moz-... [11:50] so for firefox [11:50] in the firefox-3.5 package: Xb-Moz-AppId: .... [11:51] and Xb-Moz-Version: ... [11:51] or something [11:51] the main question is whether we get that info while preparing the sources for -devscripts [11:51] can we access this data on building? [11:51] _or_ do it on the fly when the package is built [11:51] i mean the extension package [11:51] the latter is preferably if that works on builders [11:51] oetherwise the former is a safe bet [11:52] and would probably match what we have with a separate data package [11:52] yes, that's the ideal solution [11:52] just that it does not need to be maintained because the extension host apps just sign up for being listed there [11:52] bdrung_: but during buildtime of extensions is really the best solution [11:52] but for that i have to check whats possible on the builders with mvo ;) [11:52] hence the call [11:53] 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] 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] e.g.in lp:ubufox [12:00] its a bit different because i put stuff in a sqlite db [12:00] * bdrung_ clones it. [12:00] as the plugin finder service runs as a webservice [12:02] but it has the hacks required to run arbitrary sources.lists [12:02] ;) [12:06] also check this: [12:06] flashplugin-nonfree-10.0.32.18ubuntu1$ grep Xb- debian/control [12:06] Xb-Npp-Description: Adobe Flash SWF Player (http://www.adobe.com) [12:06] Xb-Npp-File: libflashplayer.so [12:06] Xb-Npp-Applications: ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384, 92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a, aa5ca914-c309-495d-91cf-3141bbb04115 [12:06] Xb-Npp-MimeType: application/x-shockwave-flash [12:07] Xb-Npp-Name: Adobe Flash Player (installer) [12:07] bdrung_: ^^ [12:07] thats how its done in the plugins control files [12:07] asac: should the extensions have such meta data, too? [12:08] i dont think - so far [12:08] but could be at some point ... especially if we want to improve ubufox [12:08] to display packaged extensions in the "Get Extensions" ... [12:08] but for the current stuff we seem to be able to figure everything we need during build from install.rdf etc. [12:09] asac: or we use the package name as indicator (all starting with xul-ext-) [12:09] bdrung_: you mean to get a db of extensions? [12:09] yes [12:09] would work. [12:09] but we probably need more or different data [12:10] like in the plugin finder case [12:10] we cannot just use package description etc. because of the different UI constraints [12:10] asac: we can generate the required data with m-d [12:10] bdrung_: if you click in the addons Get Extension dialog on the "Get Ubuntu extensions" link [12:10] there is a special app-install dialog [12:11] we maintain that info manually atm. could be improved like the plugin db at some point [12:11] but we also need images etc. which makes it a bit hard [12:12] hmmm that "Get Ubuntu Extensions" link seems to not work in karmic anymore [12:12] maybe because of the software store thign [12:12] have to check with mvo [12:13] hmm. i dont even have that software store insatlled as it seems [12:13] not in the menu anywhere [12:14] hmm gnome-app-install --xul-extensions=firefox still works [12:14] thats basically what i mean [12:14] not sure why its broken in ubufox atm [12:15] asac: it is under anwendungen [12:15] yes... but not for me ;) [12:15] asac: and it is now called software center ;) [12:15] i have it direcetly in applications top level menu on my laptop [12:15] but its not here ;) [12:15] but i can run software-store [12:15] on command line [12:15] something fishy [12:15] let me killall gnome-panel [12:16] nope ... not there :/ [12:17] not even avail in edit menus [12:19] asac: is the pbuilder environment identical to the official builders [12:19] asac: it is gone im my kvm, too. some days ago it was there [12:20] unlikely to be a reliable source for comparison [12:20] oki so probably syntax issues in the .desktop file or something [12:20] asac: it is now under system -> systemverwaltung [12:21] bug 435828 [12:21] Launchpad bug 435828 in software-store "Software Store not in System Menu after restart" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/435828 [12:21] yeah [12:22] i would think nobody will find it there [12:22] any nromal users stops reading after the first two entries i am sure [12:27] oh i think it was added to panel too ;) [12:27] and i removed it [12:31] asac: would this work? http://pastebin.com/f6f28a015 [12:32] no [12:32] well. [12:32] might work [12:32] i think parsing the stuff using the apt api would be more flexible [12:32] in pbuilder environment it works [12:33] ah [12:33] problem is that you will not see stuff from universe in main packages etc. [12:33] i would think [12:33] i really have to talk to mvo ;) [12:33] builders are black box for me [12:34] asac: k, let me know, if you have news [12:34] yep [12:34] i currently lean towards doing that on source production like in the pfs/db case [12:34] but lets hope that we can do something during build [12:37] +1 [12:38] bdrung_, the hack didnt work for the patches [12:38] it applied them *after* install [12:39] we've fixed it another way [12:39] ;) [12:39] av`: is there a difference before and after install? [12:40] what's the point applying a patch after install? [12:40] it gets applied then get removed automatically by the clean target [12:41] without affecting the files effectively [12:42] av`: k, you have to go into debian/$package/usr/share/$extname/ and run patch there [12:42] we did another way [12:42] but it worked in the end [12:42] av`: and how? [12:43] bdrung_, in the build rule we adapted the tree to be m-d compatible [12:43] then in clean we repacked the orig [12:43] to not differ from the one in the archive [12:43] wow [12:43] so that dak wouldnt refuse it [12:44] and it seems to work [12:44] anyway I saw your email about mozgest [12:44] want needs to be done? [12:45] me or you? [12:45] both [12:46] i should study, but yes [12:46] did you push mozgest to git already? [12:47] yes [12:47] ok [12:54] bdrung_, I guess removing config dialogue won't be done [12:55] then at least in ubuntu :p [12:55] lol [12:55] av`: it will not removed, it will only not beeing pop uped. [12:55] yeah, that's what I meant [12:56] let's see if someone complains [12:59] any news for the uploaders thing? [13:03] not yet. asac do not like it very much (the control.in part) [13:03] av`: i have looked how the gnome-devs did it [13:03] av`: i could implement it [13:03] why he don't like the control.in thing? [13:04] control.in gets the control autogenerated at clean / debuild run [13:04] so what's wrong with it [13:04] because you have two control files? [13:04] so? [13:04] av`: ask him directly [13:05] av`: gnome-devs only add the persons who are in debian/changelog _and_ are in the list to the uploaders [13:06] bdrung_, yes [13:06] bdrung_, can you fix the possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration thing and maybe write something more to debian.source? [13:06] and then upload mozgest [13:07] dunno how to fix possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration [13:08] what should i write to debian.source? [13:08] we should create two scripts, one for adding other for removing [13:09] but I don't think it's necessary [13:09] readme.debian sorry [13:09] you said it needs a face lifting, don't know what you meant ther [13:09] * there [13:11] formatting [13:11] want me to do it or ...? [13:11] yes, you [13:12] ok [13:12] then should be ready [13:12] av`: you should upload it (i would need a sponsor) [13:13] ok [13:17] bdrung_, what's wrong with readme.debian? [13:17] looks formatted correctly [13:30] av`: the header and the sharps and max. 80 chars/line [13:31] I don't it's a problem since you parse them using a terminal [13:31] is ok to rename the binary to xul-ext-mozgest? [13:32] bdrung_, ^^ [13:33] av`: yes, we agreed that we use xul-ext-, didn't we? [13:35] av`: it think this looks better: http://paste.ubuntu.com/279553/ [13:37] av`: or better http://paste.ubuntu.com/279556/ [13:39] bdrung_, yes [13:39] bdrung_, gonna commit now [17:29] kenvandine, http://paste.ubuntu.com/279755/ === micahg1 is now known as micahg [19:31] hi BUGabundo [19:31] hey micahg [19:31] just switched to Firefox 3.6 and apparently, it's more stable than 3.5 [19:31] especially with flash [19:33] 3.7 seem betterish [19:33] and finally I fixed my crashs [19:33] stupid xmarks [19:34] well, I prefer fairly stable :) [19:34] 3.6 branch is only accepting tested patches :) [19:37] I have no probs with 3.7 [19:37] right now, I can't file ANY bug on it [19:37] that's HOW stable it looks to me [19:38] ok, maybe one, but its addon related [19:38] Do you get white menus? [19:38] nope [19:38] * BUGabundo tests [19:39] nope [19:39] when you click on a menu, the menu title isn't white? [19:39] they all refresh as expected [19:39] enh??? [19:39] enh? [19:40]