=== asac_ is now known as asac [00:10] asac, going to sleep, the build went successful for all archs, feel free to upload it, so I can finally use epiphany :) [01:41] fta: I'm fixing the dailies now [03:39] fta: dailies are fixed, just waiting on i386 build before proposing merges [04:27] asac. i have a bug for you but i'm not sure how to best describe. [04:28] let's say i want to use imageshack. when prompted to upload an image, when choosing between two images with a similar name (file1.png and file1.jpg), the thumbnail doesn't change. [08:27] asac: fta: just wanted to let you know I finished and proposed the merges [09:02] fta: i think the theming is a gtk theme issue (icons gone) [09:14] morning asac [09:15] hi [09:15] asac: question for you how would i know what extension should be on what version of dev scripts [09:16] eagles0513875: 0.16 is our policy [09:16] ok cuz i got all confused yesterday with bdrung mentioning .17 [09:24] 0.17 is a bug fix release. doesnt matter much for extension packages [09:25] gotcha it is more for the big programs like firefox seamonkey etc [09:28] its a cleanup thing [09:28] no need to bother on extension side [09:29] ok [09:33] eagles0513875: it does not add new features and do not changes the interface [09:34] gotcha [10:06] kenvandine: gwibber on track? [10:06] ;) [10:06] fta: did you sponsor his latest fixes yet? [10:07] * asac checks micahg fixes for ffox 3.7 [11:13] FIREFOX_3_5_4_RELEASE [11:14] fta: thx. my bet is that it will take a few weeks ;) [11:14] FIREFOX_3_0_15_BUILD1 [11:49] asac: did you review m-d? [12:00] bdrung: no. pulling it now [12:51] i have a fucking babysitter for my daughter and now me :( [12:59] ouchie how u feeling btw gnomefreak [12:59] eagles0513875: fine but dr thinks im a threat to myself or to others, so now i have a babysitter for a while [13:00] O_O [13:00] eagles0513875: you using tbird3 by chance? [13:00] no im not [13:00] im fighting with alpha 6 on a vm that im trying to update [13:00] asac: and? [13:16] got side tracked obviously. now getting some food then i will really do it :) [13:23] bdrung: one question up front: why is there sol/eol business in -all.mk at all? i would think all that would be in -Ubuntu/-Debian/-common [13:25] asac: that is for packages, that are only in PPAs [13:25] yeah. i dont think we should put that into -all though [13:26] asac: ok, i can remove it [13:26] bdrung: put that in Ubuntu imo [13:26] or we make a third-party thing ... but as that repo is in theory not really debian it probably belongs to ubuntu [13:26] asac: we should only recommend packages, that are in the repos [13:27] bdrung: where is Debian/Ubuntu excluded? [13:27] asac: it's only recommends, so we do need to fit all use cases [13:27] based on lsb-release? [13:27] asac: gwibber could really use an upload, there are a ton of bugs fixed since the version in universe [13:27] cant find it ... though ti would have been a ifneq or something in -all [13:27] based on the DISTRO [13:27] oh [13:27] wait [13:28] let me check for that variable ;) [13:28] bdrung: please dont make xpi.mk.in [13:28] i wanted a tiny config file ;) [13:28] to avoid having main code in an .in [13:28] asac: didn't you said that yesterday? [13:28] no. i said make a config.mk.in [13:29] will finish bind wood honestly and truly today [13:29] and include that ;) ... at least that what i tried to say :) [13:29] been hell trying to get back into a blasted routine of studying [13:30] bdrung: so yeah. the include in xpi.mk makes sense [13:30] asac: so having one additional file for only _one_ line? [13:30] bdrung: for the ppa packages we could do a xpi-data-Ubuntu-suggests.mk or something ... but lets push that back for a a while [13:30] bdrung: yes [13:31] asac: isn't that a overkill? [13:31] bdrung: the config is on system so if we use a hard coded global path you can work on xpi.mk in upstream tree [13:31] no [13:31] its overkill to make a great source file a .in just because there is one variable [13:32] asac: where is the config file located? [13:32] you can decide. either its a distro config file: /usr/share/mozilla-devscripts/config... or a real config file /etc/mozilla-devscripts/... [13:33] i think share is probably right location as its a build-time decision we make [13:34] and users are supposed to override that with passing a parameter [13:34] or setting variable [13:34] so /usr/share/mozilla-devscripts/config.mk ? [13:34] bdrung: xpi-config.mk ... since we dont have a real dir hierarchy in there [13:34] hello again [13:35] LaPingvino: hi. [13:35] I have downloaded and tested Karmic [13:35] you left yesterday ... please just write your real problem . i will check after lunch ;) [13:35] the version of the eo-packages is still on firefox 3.0 there... [13:35] LaPingvino: go ahead ... i will read when back [13:35] thus it doesn't work [13:36] I hope the language-pack will be up-to-date with the translations for the current version of firefox when it goes out of beta [13:36] otherwise we still won't have an esperanto firefox in ubuntu [13:38] bdrung: so maybe make that config.mk -include optional and set a default with =all [13:38] asac: when you get around to testing sunbird from my PPA forget the version please that was a screw up here and it wont let me push ubuntu3 since it is lower [13:38] in the xpi.mk [13:38] gnomefreak: i was about to upload it yesterday ... not sure why i forgot ;) [13:38] i mean ... based on the branch [13:39] not on your ppa [13:39] just took the orig i think [13:39] asac: branch is good to go. thanks :) [13:39] good [13:40] asac: why do you want a =all default? [13:40] because you can then just work even without having the template done [13:40] just a safe fallback [13:40] thats possible if we put the config in a template [13:41] no real practical use besides someone working on the tree directly with a lower version installed etc. [13:55] asac: do you really insists on having a fallback? [13:56] bdrung: whats the reason not to add it? [13:56] codewise its just a -include /usr/share.../xpi-config.mk and a default before that, right? [13:57] asac: it makes the makefile longer [13:57] one line ;) [13:57] asac: no, it is more (because MOZ_XPI_DISTRO uses ?=) [13:58] http://paste.ubuntu.com/287786/ [13:58] hmm if its complicated then its not needed. [13:58] sorry that patch was wrong ;) even in theory [13:58] http://paste.ubuntu.com/287790/ [13:58] asac: defining MOZ_XPI_DISTRO ?= all makes the config file superfluid [13:59] so two ?= dont work? [13:59] k, the second one will work [13:59] asac: the first ?= will define it and the second will be ignored [14:00] yes [14:00] thats the idea [14:01] asac: but if we allow a missing config file, we have to define everything twice [14:01] when im done there are a bunch of debian mails im letting loose from mailing list [14:02] yes. but so far we only have one config variable ;) [14:02] (that does not have a distro agnostic default) [14:02] the rest of the config stuff already has its default set in the xpi.mk [14:02] (if there is a default) [14:02] asac: this would be shorter: http://pastebin.com/f7c89e2a8 [14:03] pastebin.com is really slow for me [14:03] it's pastebinit's default [14:03] bdrung: that wont protect the use case i mentioned [14:04] e.g. lower mozilla-devscripts installed [14:04] ok, ok, you win [14:04] err. where is the default set there? [14:05] only in the config :p [14:05] yes. but we dont have that config [14:05] because its a template [14:05] hence the ultimate fallback [14:06] anyway i really need food [14:06] ttyl [14:24] asac: done with lunch? ;) [14:25] * LaPingvino is reachable on ikojba@gmail.com (E-mail/XMPP/MSN) when not here... [14:49] ill be back later i have some shit to do around here [14:54] LaPingvino: back in 5 minutes .... [14:55] OK [14:55] tnx for informing me :) [15:15] LaPingvino: so whats your problem? [15:16] eo language is not avail on 3.5? [15:16] is a language that got translated in launchpad? or is that from upstream .xpis? [15:19] hi [15:20] it's from upstream [15:20] not in launchpad [15:21] I guess the upstream translations for 3.5 will be merged in yet before launch end this month... [15:21] but in the Beta it's a translation for 3.0 and that doesn't work... [15:30] asac: pushed m-d, now satisfied? [15:30] did i miss something? [15:34] bdrung: call now [15:35] bdrung: will check right after call [15:35] k [15:49] installing an ubuntu server.. [16:19] :wq [16:19] oops [16:30] bdrung: looks good. just wonder if we should make the DISTRO all lower or upper case and adjust how the other data- things are named [16:30] bdrung: besides from that, please run it against a coupld of extensino packages to see that all is fine and upload [16:31] we should put some kind of info in README ... or put test install.rdf files somewhere [16:31] or teset install.rdf and test rules so we can are better sure we dont have regressions [16:31] not now obviously ;) [16:32] let me know when its up so i can get it synched here [16:32] bdrung: for the sync it would be cool to link more bugs from changelog [16:33] so i can more easily sell it as a "bug fix" release [16:33] not sure if it makes sense to open bugs for a few things [16:33] just to document it [16:42] asac: some where only discussed on irc [16:43] asac: for 0.18 we should use this policy: lower case for internal variables and upper case for external [16:45] bdrung: yes. preferably we will have a bit longer cycle for 0.18 :) [16:45] with new features and refactoring and stuff [16:45] well thought out etc. [16:45] yes [16:46] hey i thought about 0.17, too ;) [16:46] also fixing a few mozclient issues that i have no time to deal with [16:46] i also want to add something simliar to for xulapp.mk [16:46] (i think that name is currently taken by something different for mozclient) [16:46] I didnt say that wasnt the case ;) [16:46] if there are important bugs coming in that needs to be fixed its ok [16:46] we can also say that next major target is 0.20 [16:47] :) [16:47] and before that its bug fixing [16:47] ;) [16:47] anyway. i think we made a huge difference to extension world this cycle [16:47] so we should get some rest and enjoy it ;) [16:47] and till RC freeze we should finally fix all extensions ;) [16:48] i reserved a half day slot tomorrow [16:48] to just do that [16:48] though reservations can be pretty short lived for me :( [16:49] asac: as maintainer of a Debian package do you get subscribed to all bugs against that package? [16:50] asac: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Extensions/List needs a refresh then [16:50] gnomefreak: yes [16:50] bdrung: yes. that should be done while doing the review. hopefully getting a complete list of extensions out of it [16:50] bdrung: thanks [16:51] bdrung: last thing we usually do for extensions is updating the .desktop files shipped in appt-install-data [16:51] app-install-data [16:51] asac: and we should add a column for maintaince (debian or ubuntu) [16:51] we need to update XPI.TEMPLATE [16:51] in that way you get that in the update-manager-dialog [16:51] bdrung: i think we should make a column "ubuntu only" ... because all other extensions should go to debian sooner or later [16:51] gnomefreak: iirc, the template is up-to-date [16:51] we could make a checklist entry in the review page: "already in debian" [16:52] we dont have desktop files for extensions since they dont end up anywhere in menus/lang... [16:52] bdrung: it was updated for the rules file? [16:52] asac: i like to have a link to the pts for packages in debian [16:53] gnomefreak: yes. you get subscribed. thats why we get all the icedove bug mails in the queu [16:53] * asac remembers to send out a call for help on list moderator [16:53] i just did list :) [16:53] gnomefreak: debian/rules is up-to-date [16:53] bdrung: ok didnt know it was worked on thanks [16:54] gnomefreak: we may remove MOZ_XPI_EMID, MOZ_EXTENSION_PKG and point to the xpi.mk for documentation [16:55] k [16:58] asac: is bug 438868 ubufox? [16:58] Launchpad bug 438868 in firefox-3.5 "Address bar autocomplete doesn't always work" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/438868 [17:01] lol tbird 3.0~hg20091006r4049+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1 edit>selectall is broken [17:02] unlikely ubufox [17:03] k [17:05] why not add bdrung to list mod if he wants asac ? [17:06] what? [17:06] bdrung: he said he was looking for list mods [17:06] sudo mount -a [17:06] damn [17:07] ok cooking [17:36] asac: found one typo. then it passed my regression tests. it's now uploaded [17:38] rock. [17:38] gnomefreak: not sure bdrung also wants to help on list moderation ;) [17:38] i think our team can have more admininstrative postitions ;) [17:38] and list moderation is a good entry ; [17:38] ) [17:43] asac: a couple pf ,more would be great :) [17:43] s/pf/of [17:44] yep thats what i am thinking [17:44] i can name 2 but im sure one doesnt want to do it and not sure of the other [17:49] gnomefreak: i think a public call is better. might even get more fresh blood in here ;) [17:50] asac: agreed only problem is we need to trust the person/people [17:50] sure [17:50] not sure how to best find out ;) [17:50] maybe give them a few minor administrative tasks [17:51] asac: lets see who answers and we can do it from there [17:51] or probationary period [17:51] yep [17:51] i like it [17:52] updaing last 2 chroots than i am going to finish cooking and eat [17:59] gnomefreak: what does a list moderator have to do? [18:04] bdrung: go through the emails to the mailing list and decline/accept emails. most are spam but it is high volume [18:05] out of ~50 i accepted 5 or 6 from debian [18:05] sounds doable [18:07] im ok with it if you and asac are [18:08] ok im gone. i should be here tomorrow depending if babysitter allows me to :( [19:10] asac, I was going to fix a packaging problem in 3.0 on karmic, but then I was remembering you were talking about pulling it [19:19] micahg: i pulled it to .5 [19:19] 3.5 [19:19] err 3.7 [19:19] micahg: did you fix 3.0?` [19:21] no, this is for bug 445060 [19:21] Launchpad bug 445060 in firefox-3.0 "firefox-3.0 warns about upgrades when only 3.5 is running" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/445060 [19:23] asac, were you waiting for me to rebase the 3.6 patch against your changes for badwindow? [19:23] micahg: if you want to, feel free to go for it :) [19:23] i only pulled it into the main distro branch [19:24] wanted to wait for feedback [19:24] asac, you might want to request landing o mozilla bug 499498 on 3.6 as well [19:24] Mozilla bug 499498 in X-remote "BadWindow error upon first run of FF3.5 RC" [Normal,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=499498 [19:24] since I saw that you patched that in the .head revision [19:24] micahg: its already asked for [19:24] mozbugz: approval1.9.2? [19:24] asac: approval1.9.1.5? [19:25] oops [19:25] right [19:25] :P [19:25] :-! [19:25] asac, about the update notifier issue in 3.0, is it worth fixing for karmic? [19:26] not sure what you mean ... i still wanted to get rid of 3.0 :/ [19:26] ETOOMUCHTHINGSTOREMEMBER [19:26] ok,that's my answer then :) [19:26] is there a bug? [19:26] I'll fix it for 3.5 though [19:26] bug 445060 [19:26] Launchpad bug 445060 in firefox-3.0 "firefox-3.0 warns about upgrades when only 3.5 is running" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/445060 [19:26] i dont know what the problem is ;) [19:26] ah [19:27] i thought that was fixed [19:27] update notifier does a pgrep on firefox instead of firefox-3.0 [19:27] oh ... ok [19:27] thats the other thing [19:27] i wanted to actually drop that [19:27] preferably if ubufox is installed [19:27] yeah, I do get 2 notitifcations on updates [19:28] asac, I was wondering if we can do complex diplay ifs? [19:28] *DisplayIfs [19:28] or better yet "enabled" [19:28] not sure how to best do it ;) [19:28] do we have a way to check if an extension is enabled yet? [19:28] not in a sane way [19:28] the approach would be to search all profile dirs for a lock [19:29] file [19:29] well, we can easily check to see if it's installed as a package [19:29] and then check if the ubufox extension is enabled for that profile [19:29] yes [19:29] i think its worth considering [19:29] but fta for instance wouldnt get any notification because he has it just disabled [19:29] probably a minority though ;) [19:30] then why would he have it installed? [19:33] asac: is it possible to do multiple DisplayIfs thoug? [19:34] micahg: we can make a script most likely [19:34] instead of putting raw stuff in there [19:34] and then DisplayIf the script returns true? [19:36] most likely [19:36] give it a try ;) [19:36] exit 0 [19:36] exit 1 [19:36] i wanted to do that a while ago [19:37] yes [19:37] ;) [19:37] i wish someone writes a real adblock for chromium [19:39] do extensions live in a separate process too? [19:39] asac, do I have to uncommit to rebase? [19:39] micahg: not sure what you mean [19:40] oh, neverming [19:40] I knwo what I did [19:40] micahg: k [19:40] http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/index.html [19:42] asac, can you look at bug 441872 [19:42] Launchpad bug 441872 in network-manager "network-manager disconnects from wirless network" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/441872 [19:42] fta: do i need to read all this to get the answer ;)? [19:44] ok [19:44] so i would think yes from what i read [20:01] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33243756/buildlog_ubuntu-jaunty-amd64.firefox-3.7_3.7~a1~hg20091007r33630%2Bnobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1~jaunty_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [20:01] still the same patch !??? [20:02] fta: it was working for me yesterday [20:03] http://paste.ubuntu.com/288044/ [20:03] there's jsut the changelog, the patch is missing [20:04] nm, stupid bzr & merge [20:04] yeah [20:05] fta: it will fail again though...http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c2e54fc14cd7 [20:07] fta@cube:/data/bot/firefox-3.7.head $ bzr st [20:07] working tree is out of date, run 'bzr update' [20:07] fta@cube:/data/bot/firefox-3.7.head $ bzr pull bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.7.head/ [20:07] bzr: ERROR: Tags not supported by BzrBranch5('file:///data/bot/firefox-3.7.head/'); you may be able to use bzr upgrade. [20:07] oops [20:08] my fault. i upgraded to 0.92 [20:08] didnt know it would complain [20:08] usually pulling works [20:08] 0.92 is really conservative still ;) [20:08] current default format is 2.0a [20:08] after upgrade & update: [20:08] fta@cube:/data/bot/firefox-3.7.head $ bzr update [20:08] M debian/changelog [20:08] M debian/patches/bz460917_att350845_reload_new_plugins.patch [20:08] All changes applied successfully. [20:09] hmm. are you now on 2.0a? [20:09] we dont want to go that far i think [20:09] i did upgrade --pack-0.92 [20:10] asac, can you check my comments here: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~micahg/firefox/firefox-3.6-20091006 [20:10] I have to fix the patch anyways [20:10] but I wanted to know if the comment was ok [20:10] asac, so when you do that, the bot is stuck [20:11] yes. now i know that [20:11] before i didnt ... i often have different branch formats locally vs. remote and usually dont have problems [20:12] fta: seems that only tag support is kind of the bridge that we needed to pass at some point ... so ... anyway, before i check other branches i will ping you :) [20:13] ok [20:15] ok on first glance it doesnt look like they changed the functions of plugin finder wizard [20:15] just refactored the code [20:15] micahg: my comment would read "adjust patches after landing of "bug title" (bmo:xxxx)" [20:16] so ... probably ok [20:16] though i like mine better ;) [20:16] ok, do I have to redo it after you landed your revisions? [20:18] asacL is it more important to gut ff3.0 out of karmic or fix all the FTBFSs before release? [20:18] asac ^^^ [20:19] micahg: what ftbfs? [20:19] in archive? [20:19] in yeah [20:19] asac, http://paste.ubuntu.com/288051/ ?? [20:19] i think priority for mozillateam should be: a) fix blocker bugs in archive, b) fix ftbfs in archive, c) remove ffox 3.0, d) do the rest ;) [20:20] fta: yes. the unnamed ones are really old [20:20] fta: please run upgrade --pack-0.92 [20:20] locally and remote [20:20] let me know when done so i can sync my branches [20:20] asac, I'm referring to all the packages, not just mozilla ones for FTBFS [20:20] fta: i think i upgraded the 3.1 tree at some point [20:20] because i tag archive releases [20:21] all xul are 0.92 [20:21] micahg: for mozillateam the other ftbfs are not so important ;) ... if you want to look from the distro point of view i would think that blocker bugs or ftbfs of mozilla stuff on supported hardware is more important [20:21] and even getting ffox 3.0 out is more or same important [20:21] yes, I was wondering from a distro point of view [20:22] fta: yes, xul branches are younger [20:22] ok, so I guess I'll focus on the mozilla stuff then [20:22] the ffox branch still comes from earliest day [20:22] or am i wrong? [20:22] micahg: sparc build failures etc are not important [20:22] if its a main package its important, but most likely someone should already be working on that [20:23] if you spot one that would be good to verify [20:24] micahg: what we want to know for firefox-3.0 is how many packages still rdepend on that [20:24] i mean: rdepend on it in such a way that they coulndt be installed anymore [20:24] i hope thats close to zero [20:24] then we file a removal request ;) [20:25] ok, I so have to look at each of the rdepends to see if it also depends on firefox | firefox-3.5 [20:25] and same for xul1.9? [20:25] asac, done for 3.2, but i can't for 3.7 [20:26] fta: whats the prob for 3.7? [20:26] its already pack-0.92 [20:26] at least the upgrade succeeded here [20:26] fta@cube:/data/bot/firefox-3.7.head $ bzr upgrade --pack-0.92 [20:26] bzr: ERROR: Cannot convert from format to format