[09:20] <ejat> !ping fta
[10:55] <BUGabundo_work> boas
[11:01] <asac> hola
[11:01] <asac> [reed]: some folks wonder how they can deploy firefox with additional root certs (e.g. for their own organization)
[11:01] <asac> is there a way to do that in a global way?
[11:02] <BUGabundo_work> hey asac long time no see
[11:02] <BUGabundo_work> :p
[11:04] <asac> yep
[11:04] <asac> ;)
[11:04] <asac> busy
[11:04] <asac> busy
[11:05] <BUGabundo_work> yeah right :)
[11:05] <BUGabundo_work> any ideas whats gonna be default browser in lucid?
[11:05] <BUGabundo_work> are we even considering double browser ?
[11:06] <BUGabundo_work> and break the ONE app per function in default install?
[11:08] <asac> BUGabundo_work: what do you mean?
[11:08] <asac> BUGabundo_work: I dont see the main desktop image to move away from firefox
[11:08] <asac> however, optimized images might move to something else
[11:09] <asac> like for arm UNE (mobile team) we are looking into chromium etc.
[11:20] <BUGabundo_work> oh cool
[11:44] <fta> asac, did you copy the codecs?
[11:44] <fta> asac, also, if you can push to a more stable/neutral location, it would be nice
[11:44] <asac> fta: ack
[11:44] <fta> i can drag in some testers from upstream
[11:45] <asac> i will check for a different location
[11:46] <asac> fta: dont hesitate to get them test from that location. if they need help on getting lucid images on their arm hardware, they can come to #ubuntu-arm
[11:46] <fta> asac, can't you create a generic arm team and ask for a new native ppa in there?
[11:46] <asac> no
[11:46] <asac> well yes.
[11:46] <asac> but atm policy does not allow any native ppa for teams where non-canonical folks are there. dont ask me why
[11:46] <asac> i will try to work for a different approach
[11:46] <fta> i won't be able to use it, i got that already
[11:47] <asac> well. i can pocket copy whatever you want ;)
[11:47] <asac> just not dailies. we have not enough builders for that
[11:47] <fta> it's just that asking upstream to try something in a moz recycled ppa is weird
[11:47] <asac> let me copy the codecs
[11:47] <asac> ack
[11:48] <asac> fta: we separate those codecs because of licensing/patent issues, right?
[11:49] <asac> ok copied
[11:49] <asac> lets check if that fails to build
[11:49] <asac> fta: that packages does not try to build on armel
[11:49] <asac> maybe architecture: i386 amd64 ?
[11:50] <fta> oh, maybe
[11:52] <fta> hmm, yasm on arm? is there such thing?
[11:55] <asac> fta: hmm. armel?
[11:55] <asac> maybe?
[11:55] <fta> asac, could you get the metacity patch in? each visual alert made by chromium makes metacity assert
[11:55] <asac> which one=
[11:55] <asac> ?
[11:55] <fta> bug 467972
[11:55] <fta> gnome 598231
[11:55] <BUGabundo_work> ehh
[11:55] <BUGabundo_work> i'vent seen that
[11:56] <fta> when there's no (more) match while doing a search, metacity restarts, really annoying
[12:05] <asac> fta: so ... shall i just upload with armel added to architectireu?
[12:07] <fta> i just committed the arch any
[12:07] <fta> just wondering about yasm
[12:08] <fta> apparently not
[12:09] <asac> fta: yasm exists on armel
[12:10] <fta> http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/yasm ?
[12:10] <fta> just i386/amd64
[12:21] <asac> fta: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/primary/+files/yasm_0.8.0-1_armel.deb
[12:21] <asac> ?
[12:21] <asac> fta: packages.ubuntu.com does not track stuff on ports
[12:21] <asac> so you dont see it there
[12:21] <fta> oh, damn
[12:23] <fta> damn, metacity crashed.. again
[12:26] <fta> i bet all desktop devs use compiz :(
[12:26] <fta> so they don't care
[12:27] <asac> yes. even i am on copmiz everywhere now
[12:27] <asac> until last cycle my main desktop couldnt do it
[13:06] <BUGabundo_work> i'm on compiz
[13:06] <BUGabundo_work> been for several releases
[13:06] <BUGabundo_work> after several ones where i would not like it
[13:06] <BUGabundo_work> yesterday tried xedgers PPA with X 1.5
[13:07] <BUGabundo_work> heck that thing is huber broken
[13:10] <fta> pushed the metacity fix to my own ppa, i'm sick of it
[13:12] <av`> asac, around?
[13:13] <asac> av`: no ;)
[13:14] <av`> asac, I'm a DD :)
[13:14] <asac> CONGRATS!
[13:14] <av`> thanks :)
[13:23] <BUGabundo_work> congrats av`
[13:23] <av`> BUGabundo_work, thanks :)
[13:23] <av`> BUGabundo_work, if you need any sponsorship just ask :)
[13:23] <BUGabundo_work> humm
[13:23] <BUGabundo_work> let me give it a good think
[13:23] <BUGabundo_work> theres fuse
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> that needs to be looked at
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> in unstable and pushed to lucid
[13:24] <av`> is it a NEW package?
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> so i can nag bjsnider to build lessfs
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> not sure
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> least time i looked at it , it was going to unstable
[13:24] <BUGabundo_work> then i lost track
[13:25] <BUGabundo_work> after debian has it, will need to get it synced to lucid
[13:25] <BUGabundo_work> other then that, its all fine
[13:25] <BUGabundo_work> small bug with smplayer
[13:25] <BUGabundo_work> but its filed upstream
[13:25] <BUGabundo_work> debian has an higher version then upstream LOL
[13:27] <av`> lol
[13:27] <av`> how can it be possible?
[13:29] <BUGabundo_work> ehe
[13:29] <BUGabundo_work> debian repackaged it
[13:29] <BUGabundo_work> and upped it
[13:29] <BUGabundo_work> no idea why
[13:29] <BUGabundo_work> took bjsnider a bit to find how the heck that happend
[13:35] <fta> wtf? Rejected: PPA exceeded its size limit (17204.00 of 10240.00 MiB). Ask a question in https://answers.launchpad.net/soyuz/ if you need more space.
[13:53] <fta> seems my gwibber is broken, it spins forever since i tried to post something
[13:54] <fta> hm, last message is 6h old
[13:54] <asac> anything in .xsession-errors?
[13:54] <asac> i guess there was a dbus timeout or something
[13:56] <fta> difficult to say, it's a mess in there
[13:57] <fta> apparently, nothing relevant
[14:14] <fta> yuhuuu 8.7 MiB (0.08%) of 10.0 GiB, better
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> new PPA ?
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> fta: how many do u manage?
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> how much CPU power do all your bots use?
[14:20] <fta> no, my own ppa (~fta)
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> ahhh u cleared it
[14:20] <BUGabundo_work> aheh
[14:21] <fta> just removed 90+ packages
[14:21] <fta> my bot or the builders?
[14:22] <fta> my bot can do the just in 20min depending on how fast the remote vcs are
[14:22] <fta> +job
[14:22] <fta> but often, it takes 45min
[14:22] <fta> as the builders, it's another matter
[14:23] <fta> could be all done in 2~3h hours or more than 24h depending on how machines are preempted to do something else, or the ppa queue
[14:29] <fta> BUGabundo_work, ^^, but there's always someone to complain about my stuff, http://identi.ca/notice/16085460 http://identi.ca/notice/16096444
[14:29] <BUGabundo_work> i know
[14:30] <BUGabundo_work> i've read both in realtiem
[14:33] <fta> me too, but i didn't see any reply
[14:34] <fta> so maybe he's the only one to care enough to fire a complaint
[14:34] <fta> -t
[14:46] <BUGabundo_work> i think i replied to one
[14:46] <BUGabundo_work> but was over OMB
[14:46] <BUGabundo_work> so might not have gotten threaded correctly
[14:57] <fta> i386	6	 179 jobs (11 hours)
[14:57] <fta> ok, so no metacity today :( i'll build it locally
[14:59] <fta> we went from 14 i386 builders 2h ago, to 6
[15:14] <[reed]> asac: hmm, I think it's possible, but it's a royal pain.
[15:15] <[reed]> [05:08:56] <asac> however, optimized images might move to something else
[15:15] <[reed]> [05:09:13] <asac> like for arm UNE (mobile team) we are looking into chromium etc.
[15:15] <[reed]> why chromium over Firefox for mobile?
[15:16] <BUGabundo_work> eeheh
[15:16] <BUGabundo_work> [reed]: dont like lossing quota?
[15:16] <fta> because ff is a slow pig?
[15:16] <BUGabundo_work> ahhaahaaahahahahahaaha
[15:17] <[reed]> if you have specific complaints, it would be useful for Mozilla to know... you know, talk to us
[15:17] <[reed]> we're building a mobile edition, too, you know
[15:17] <BUGabundo_work> no really
[15:17] <BUGabundo_work> want to really take it?
[15:17] <BUGabundo_work> 1st: startup time
[15:17] <BUGabundo_work> chromium < 1sec
[15:17] <BUGabundo_work> FF ~3-5 secs
[15:18] <BUGabundo_work> memory usage: Ch 2 wind 5 tabs each: 40-60 mb each, shared and stuff, total 300-400 MBs
[15:18] <BUGabundo_work> FF: 1 win, 1 tab: >300MBs
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> addos: FF wins :)
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> page load: chromium wins
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> comparing FF 3.7 vs Ch 4-dev
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> UI space: Ch wins again
[15:19] <BUGabundo_work> drag and drop tabs anywhere: lovely
[15:20] <[reed]> last I checked, we still had everybody beat in long-term memory use
[15:20] <[reed]> by a bunch
[15:21] <BUGabundo_work> want a 3 days comparation?
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work>  8782 mainroad  20   0 1209m 301m  39m S    8  3.8 173:32.88 firefox-3.7
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work>  2787 mainroad  20   0 1105m  84m  22m S    2  1.1  35:51.41 chromium-browse                                                                                                             3135 mainroad  20   0  868m  62m 9.8m S    0  0.8   1:02.43 chromium-browse
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work> again: ff 3 tabs 1 win
[15:22] <BUGabundo_work> ch 4 win, several tabs
[15:24] <[reed]> I think you're missing the point, but I don't know when the last time the memory tests were done. I can check on that later.
[15:25] <BUGabundo_work> [reed]: eheh i'll let u know more in the end of the week then
[15:25] <BUGabundo_work> lol
[15:28] <[reed]> http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
[15:29] <[reed]> that's based on ch 3
[15:29] <[reed]> and ff 3.5
[15:29] <[reed]> looking at top is not a valid test
[15:34] <fta> BUGabundo_work, about:memory in ch
[15:35] <BUGabundo_work> Chromium 69,684k	72,502k Note: If other browsers (e.g. IE, Firefox, Safari) are running, I'll show their memory details here.
[15:35] <BUGabundo_work> 2787	 Browser 69,424k	72,037k 2788	 Sandbox helper 260k	465k
[15:39] <asac> [reed]: its not really decided. first step is to ensure that its in the archive and working on arm. then we do benchmarks, feature comparisions etc. before deciding. https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-lucid-arm-lightweightbrowser
[15:52]  * fta smells fear floating around here..
[16:20] <asac> hehe
[16:20] <asac> [reed]: ok now i have a bit time ;). so what we plan to do is to get chromium in a shape that we can actually compare it
[16:20] <asac> atm its not even in the archive etc.
[16:21] <asac> [reed]: as you can see in the spec its not only horse we have in the race
[16:21] <asac> the idea is to tune firefox performance as much as possible
[16:21] <asac> and since we move to all-in-one packaging approach we should be delivering pretty much what you test
[16:22] <asac> so if there are still issues with performance etc. we can hopefully work better with mozilla addressing them
[16:22] <fta> asac, "Resolve Chromium armv7 build issues: " TODO -> DONE
[16:22] <asac> yep ;)
[16:22] <asac> fta: is there a separat work item for verifying that it actually works?
[16:22] <BUGabundo_work> make FF faster and ill swich to it again
[16:22] <BUGabundo_work> right now , i cant even open gmail in it
[16:22] <asac> thats also a task of this. we want to check out PGO
[16:23] <fta> asac, upstream devs say it works for them as it's used in chrome-os
[16:23] <asac> mozilla / [reed] said they never were able to get that to work, but every bit of performance we can get out of it is worth efforts i guess
[16:23] <asac> fta: yes. but lucid might be different. who knows how our libc and toolchain behave etc.
[16:23] <asac> fta: they probably built it in hardy? ;)
[16:24] <asac> or is that karmic or what do they base their stuff on?
[16:24] <fta> i've got reports that it should work just fine for arm v5-6-7
[16:24] <asac> fta: hmm. so the build failure we got on karmic is fixed?
[16:25] <fta> but they all cross build, noone is doing it natively
[16:25] <fta> fixed i don't know, but fixable, sure
[16:25] <asac> yeah. but cross building feels even more error prone imo
[16:25] <asac> unless they tweaked their X chain to workaround issues in chromium
[16:26] <asac> we will know soon.
[16:26] <asac> fta: can we install chromium and force depends?
[16:26] <fta> if you could retry a build on karmic, i can work with them to fix the remaining issues
[16:26] <asac> e.g. will it not work if we dont have the codecs?
[16:26] <asac> if so i can ask someone to firef it up now
[16:26] <asac> fta: so there were fixes since we last tried?
[16:26] <fta> it will work without codecs, it's just a lazy dlopen
[16:27] <fta> yes
[16:27] <asac> atm the buildd's are really busted as it seems with huge backlog because they were down over the weekend
[16:27] <asac> so i will wait with a new spin a bit
[16:27] <asac> tomorrow morning i will check again
[16:27] <asac> libdap built broke all armel builders over weekend ;)
[16:27] <fta> armel	6	 143 jobs (3 hours 20 minutes), 3h! lol, looks like a joke
[16:28] <asac> yeah
[16:28] <asac> not sure why it thinks 3 hours is the target ;)
[16:29] <fta> more like 3 days
[16:30] <micahg> asac: PM?
[16:32] <asac> micahg: jumping from call to call atm ;) ... when will you be back=
[16:32] <asac> ?
[16:32] <asac> or how long will you be still here?
[16:32] <micahg> asac: I'm going to work in about 30-40 minutes, tomorrow works for me
[16:32] <asac> ok let me check
[16:33] <asac> hmm. would be available in 30minutes tomorrow :/
[16:33] <asac> doesnt help i guess
[16:33] <micahg> 1700 UTC?
[16:33] <asac> that works
[16:34] <micahg> asac: tomorrow?
[16:34] <asac> yes
[16:34] <micahg> ok
[16:34] <asac> ttyt
[16:34] <micahg> thanks
[19:01] <lyosha> Hello.  I installed firefox 3.5 from mozilla-daily ppa on my hardy machine, and it does not use hinting as specified in /etc/fonts/conf.d.  What do I need to do instead?
[20:03] <fta> asac, do you think i can somehow accept contributions for translated strings for chromium using lp? some users desperately want to contribute, and i'm willing to provide the hooks
[20:37] <micahg> fta: I'll have to fix TB daily tonight
[20:37] <fta> :)
[21:53] <fta> removing myself from bug 254413, i have no plan to work on this anymore
[21:53] <fta> and from bug 183492
[22:12]  * micahg is not up for another project right now
[22:18] <fta> micahg, i'm not asking you to ;) they are all moz related, so i announce it here
[22:18] <micahg> I know, I'm just announcing that I can't do it :)
[22:18] <fta> the 1st is piece of cake, the 2nd is worse than songbird
[22:19] <micahg> after songbird, I want to try to bring sunbird up to speed
[22:40] <BUGabundo> asac: fta: why does my clean install have a /etc/firefox-3.0 ?
[22:41] <BUGabundo> lucid should not have anything to do with it
[22:41] <fta> what do you have inside ?
[22:42] <fta> should give you a clue
[22:42] <fta> i guess it's ubufox/apturl
[22:43] <fta> BUGabundo, ^^
[22:44] <BUGabundo> fta $ ls -lR /etc/firefox-3.0/ | pastebinit  http://paste.ubuntu.com/336867/
[22:45] <fta> see? :)
[22:45] <micahg> BUGabundo: it's ubufox, please file a bug against it
[22:45] <BUGabundo> ok
[22:49] <BUGabundo> micahg: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubufox/+bug/493805
[22:50] <micahg> BUGabundo: triaged (problem on karmic as well)
[23:08] <fta> *sigh* https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-lucid-multiarch-support
[23:08] <fta> fortunately, chromium moved away from ia32-libs
[23:11] <BUGabundo> fta Registered by Robbie Williamson on 2009-04-21
[23:11] <BUGabundo> lolol
[23:11] <BUGabundo> just stay put
[23:12] <fta> this topic has been discussed at many UDS, always postponed
[23:14] <BUGabundo> duh
[23:14] <BUGabundo> go figure
[23:14] <BUGabundo> we would need a batalion of devs on it
[23:14] <BUGabundo> and upstream support
[23:30] <fta> i don't think so, it's mostly apt/dpkg
[23:32] <fta> the plan was already in place in may (or was it in nov last year?)
[23:42] <BUGabundo> baahhh
[23:42] <BUGabundo> why can't google make their own sites work with chromium ?
[23:43] <BUGabundo> picasaweb full screen is buggy
[23:58] <fta> different teams