/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/01/17/#ubuntu-mozillateam.txt

=== heikki__ is now known as heikki
lantiziaWhen FX 3.6 comes out... will we get it in 9.10 or will a PPA be needed?18:32
lantiziaAnd if the answer is a PPA... is there a PPA that always -just- has the most update but released version... rather than a daily build of something unreleased18:32
gnomefreaklantizia: we have a PPA already for dailies and yes there is a good chance it will make it in Lucid18:34
gnomefreaklantizia: i think we ar3e waiting for a decision to be made about 3.7 becoming 3.618:34
lantiziagnomefreak, well see the other example is Thunderbird... I'm on 9.10 and I want Thunderbird 3... I could use the tar.gz but I like repositories18:35
gnomefreaklantizia: it will make it into Lucid18:35
lantiziaSo my choice is stick with 2.0 which doesn't suppose a load of great features... or use a daily snapshot PPA that could be unstable18:35
lantiziaWhy not have a PPA that only contains the final builds from Mozilla?18:35
gnomefreaklantizia: right now IIRC there is a building bug that her hit and he pushed the packaging to asac since he lost avlaible time18:36
gnomefreaklantizia: we were supposed to make one but dont know if we did or not18:36
gnomefreaklantizia: 3.0 is stable but our dailies are from pre-security release18:36
lantiziaAs it is my best solution is to purge Ubuntu of both Firefox and Thunderbird and start installing them in /opt from the .tar.gz... at least I get the most current released version  - but I have to update them myself18:37
gnomefreaksame with 3.518:37
gnomefreaklantizia: 1st you dont want to do that. that only causes issues on your system. second we have stable tb3.0 in a PPA18:37
lantiziagnomefreak, which PPA?18:38
gnomefreaklike i said with that in our daily PPA is just securityl releases that we are ahead of18:38
lantiziahttps://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa ?18:38
gnomefreakyes that looks right. 1 sec18:38
gnomefreakyep that is the one18:38
lantiziaOK so if I install the firefox-3.6 and thunderbird-3.0 packages from that PPA... they won't start updating in to code that is unreleased as final?18:39
lantiziaI know 3.6 isn't final... but it's close enough lol18:39
gnomefreakInstalled: 3.0.2~hg20100115r4635+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1   << is stable just using nightlys for the security releases example 3.0.2....18:40
lantiziagnomefreak, so that 3.0.2 of TB is the same build as Mozilla would have out in the .tar.gz and .exe ?18:40
micahglantizia: I have the final TB3 in a ppa18:40
micahgstill branded as shredder18:41
micahglantizia: also 3.6 will end up in all stable releases18:41
lantiziaI don't want anything branded as anything other than FX and TB18:41
micahglantizia: then you'll have to wait18:41
gnomefreaklantizia: right now we are all busy enough we will get them into Lucid as soon as we can. there are only a few of us (4-5) that are working on all mozilla packages but me and 1 other are running low on time to work on them18:41
gnomefreakhi micahg18:41
micahghi gnomefreak18:41
lantiziaHey I'm not moaning about whats being done, I'm asking where stuff is18:41
lantiziaOr what exactly is it18:41
gnomefreaki gave you that info already :)18:42
lantiziaNo, no you really really didn't18:42
gnomefreaklantizia: tb3 in daily PPA is final except that we are using nightly snapshots from pre-secuityl release18:42
lantiziaI'm after the repo equivalent of Mozilla current released builds only... is that what exists in that PPA?18:42
gnomefreakit will get into Lucid as soon as we can get it in there18:43
lantiziaWell I'm not on Lucid so I don't care about that18:43
gnomefreakmicahg: did we ever set up the sttable PPA for all releases?18:43
micahggnomefreak: not yet18:43
micahgprobably towards the end of the lucid cycle18:43
gnomefreakmicahg: ok i had offered to package them but i ran out of time nad i asked someone to open PPA18:44
micahggnomefreak: we need to decide on a convention for the PPAs still18:44
gnomefreakmicahg: makes sense :) i am so behind in Lucid dev cycle :(18:45
micahggnomefreak: I'm further behind then I would have liked18:45
gnomefreaki have to deal with court/personal life before i can sit down and work all day most of the weeks like i was.18:46
gnomefreakcourt just happens to be in NJ so i have to drive up there for a week or so here and there until its done18:47
gnomefreak~9-10 hour drive18:47
lantiziaok giving thunderbird-3.0 and firefox-3.6 a go from that PPA18:47
gnomefreakmicahg: do you have the PPa fo the SM2 build. i woiuld like to use it and test it :)18:48
micahggnomefreak: not yet18:48
lantiziaAnd it's branded as Shredder!18:48
gnomefreakmicahg: ok18:48
lantiziaW T F18:48
micahgI can give you the link to the guy's ppa18:48
micahgs/ppa/bzr repo/18:48
gnomefreaklantizia: it will be since we are using nightly snapshots18:48
micahglantizia: dailies are shredder18:48
micahglantizia: Mozilla has branding restrictions, hence debian ships icedove18:48
lantiziaWell then that is just hopeless... If I want a genuine final build I have to use .tar.gz18:48
gnomefreakonce it hits Lucid it will be named thunderbird18:49
lantiziaI know all about the branding restrictions but if you just made a final build .deb then everything would be cool18:49
micahglantizia: not necessarily18:49
lantiziai.e. you can use the real branding18:49
micahgwe're not necessarily allowed to do that18:49
gnomefreakok i give up do what you feel like doing but you will most likely run into problems when we push it into lucid18:49
lantiziaWell you do with the ones you ship with the main distro18:49
micahglantizia: yes, those go through branding review18:49
lantiziaand the review entails what?18:50
gnomefreakIIRC firefox/thunderbird we have to have permissions befor we can use official branding. maybe Sm but i know on sunbird i was able to change to it without much of a problem18:51
gnomefreakthe review process is why Debian uses ice*18:51
lantiziaSo every binary built package of mozilla products need to be uploaded to mozilla for them to approve?18:52
gnomefreakthey want no strigs attached for non free licences18:52
micahglantizia: no, but we have to clarify what we can brand18:52
gnomefreaklantizia: no18:52
lantiziaWell exactly18:52
lantiziaif it is the final build that you have you built - you can use their branding!18:52
lantiziabecause it's exactly what they've released - bar software updates disabled18:53
micahglantizia: no it's not18:53
gnomefreaklantizia: yes for most part18:53
gnomefreakthe release is not the same18:53
lantiziathe changes you make tho will already be ones mozilla are aware of since it's been done half a dozen times before18:53
gnomefreaklantizia: why? our builds have been changed from Mozilla builds. we can only change certain things without breaking license and we dont upload our changes unles we upload a patch to Mozilla18:55
lantiziamozilla may be protective over their branding - but I think canonical have taken things way too far here18:55
lantiziaif it's a final build it deserves the original branding... and if possible putting in the main repository for the people who want it18:55
lantiziaeven if it is an RC it should have the original branding - just like mozilla do... and attempt to replace the existing installation18:56
gnomefreaklantizia: that in an opinon. define too far. Conanica are within the rights that we have for non free licenses18:56
lantiziatheres plenty about ubuntu thats already non-free, just like debian18:56
gnomefreakWE CANT ALWAYS DO THAT18:57
gnomefreakapport updates shouldnt be affected by feature freeze AFAIK, thinking upstream apport is from a Ubuntu dev18:58
lantiziaqua?18:59
gnomefreakmicahg:Pitti is the upstream apport dev isnt he?19:02
micahggnomefreak: yeah, but what's the issue?19:03
gnomefreakmicahg: nothing a bug was filed to use apport on non official packages (PPAs) but that should not need to be in before FF should it? since we are upstream19:04
gnomefreakwe can use some hooks for our pakcages. i just dont do hooks19:04
micahggnomefreak: yes, we do use hooks19:04
micahggnomefreak: I filed the bug :)19:05
gnomefreakmicahg: not for all our packages example Sm sb19:05
micahggnomefreak: right19:05
micahgbut we have them for FF19:05
gnomefreakdo you yhave bug handy19:05
micahggnomefreak: for apport?19:05
gnomefreakmicahg: FF thunderbird19:05
micahggnomefreak: FF already has hooks19:08
gnomefreakyes and so does TB IIRC19:08
micahggnomefreak: AFAIK, TB doesn't yet19:09
gnomefreakoh i thought we did that a while ago maybe a couple of years19:09
gnomefreakfreddy and someone else were supposed to do that19:10
gnomefreakas i recall19:10
micahgwell, it's not in TB219:10
micahgFF35 has hooks19:10
gnomefreakthan i guess they never finished it or even started it but they said they would oh well19:11
gnomefreakbe back in a few19:13
gnomefreakif you have the branch for SM ill go ahead and spin it. if you want i can push it to my PPA if you want to test it19:19
lantiziagnomefreak, micahg: I mean consider VLC... they keep a PPA up to date with the latest (final) version  of any build19:19
gnomefreakmicahg: ^^^19:19
lantiziaNow I'm not expecting Mozilla to do this, they're obviously lazy... but it would be nice if Ubuntu did19:20
lantiziaboth VLC and Mozilla are kind of hypocritical however, it's miles easier to get the latest version if your a Windows users - yet they're both open source projects19:20
micahggnomefreak: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/+junk/seamonkey219:20
gnomefreaklantizia: we havent set ours up yet please read above19:21
micahglantizia: mozilla is not lazy, they're very busy19:21
micahglantizia: VLC has different terms19:21
gnomefreakso are we :)19:21
lantiziamicahg, OK they have the wrong priorities then19:21
lantiziaIf Firefox is freedom of your browser and freedom for web standards... how about freedom to easily install on any OS other than windows?19:21
micahglantizia: they provide builds for that19:21
gnomefreaklantizia: no Mozilla app is "free"19:22
micahggo to firefox.com19:22
lantiziaThey provide ONE .tar.gz lol19:22
lantiziaAnd not even a 64 bit build19:22
lantiziaIf Ubuntu had the same number of user as Windows tomorrow... You'd quickly see Mozilla start up a repository19:23
micahgsorry, I'm in the middle of a doc jam right now, so I can't really have this conversation right now19:23
lantiziaIt's hypocrisy!19:23
gnomefreaklantizia: than use something other than Mozilla or have this convo. with Mozilla, all info you need is above please read and decide what you want to do.19:24
gnomefreakMozilla never said they would provide this or that so they cant be hipocits19:25
lantiziaBy their very message of spreading freedom... yes they are19:26
lantiziaAt least VLC make the effort for multi-distro release and they are MUCH MUCH smaller a project19:26
gnomefreaklantizia: VLC has how many seperate apps?19:27
gnomefreaklantizia:19:27
lantizia519:28
gnomefreakmozilla is also having issues on the usehow many does Mozilla have?19:28
lantiziaprobably countless19:29
lantiziabut a big majority are not desktop apps19:29
lantiziaor are specialised to a specific OS on purpose19:29
gnomefreaklantizia: a company can not cater to everyones wants, the packages are provided to us without cost. now they have to find a way to pay for the upkeep of servers, so they cant build binaries for all packages for all platforms19:34
lantiziaBut they do make it exceptionally easier for those using the most popular operating system... the operating that is by far the least free of them all and is philosophically the opposite of the mozilla core mission19:35
gnomefreakand pay thier people on the payroll19:35
gnomefreaklantizia: it pays off to build packages for windows users, there are alot more users, but keep in mind the code is not even close to the same for win/linux/mac19:37
gnomefreaki dont think they build bins for mac either. But if you want it to change file a bug upstream but more than likely they will ask you to help out money or packaging or what not.19:38
gnomefreakgr 3.6 is still giving 919:39
gnomefreakproblems not 919:39
micahggnomefreak: ??19:41
gnomefreakmicahg: unresponsive script19:41
gnomefreak3.5 3.7 do not have this problem19:42
micahggnomefreak: well, all 3 have the code for it19:42
[reed]lantizia: why do you say it's far easier to get Firefox for Windows than Linux? I use official builds from mozilla.com, and my builds update just fine without problems.19:45
gnomefreakmicahg: something wrong with that branch. it cant grab it19:45
lantizia[reed], with windows you double click and your away... can you say that for the linux offering from mozilla?19:46
gnomefreakoops my fault19:46
[reed]sure, why not? you can unpack a tarball and run it directly from that directory19:46
lantizia[reed], now consider if the mozilla.org site detecting which 32/64 bit edition of ubuntu you were and offered a link to add a repo19:46
[reed]I keep my firefox install as /home/reed/firefox/19:46
[reed]works fine19:46
lantizia[reed], yes I know HOW you use it... I'm on about the simplicity19:47
[reed]and then every Linux distro would want us to repackage it... that responsibility falls to the Mozilla maintainers for each Linux distro19:47
lantizia[reed], download... open.... extract... make symlinks... make launchers... then link in to your plugins directories wherever they are... it's a ball ache for a novice19:47
lantizia[reed], and I say... GOOD19:48
[reed]I never do that19:48
[reed]all works fine for me19:48
lantiziaMozilla _should_ be promoting their browser on as many different OS's as possible than just saying oh it works on Windows and if you're using any flavour of linux here is something we compressed earlier19:48
lantiziasod 64bit, sod solaris, sod bsd, etc...19:50
[reed]yeah, no, we're not going to dedicate time to repacking builds for all 100 different *nix versions19:50
[reed]again, that's the job of the Mozilla maintainer for that distro19:50
[reed]that's always been our pledge19:50
lantiziaoh and I suppose it's up to Microsoft to make the setup.exe program for Firefox too is it?19:51
lantiziaAnd apple for the dmg image?19:51
gnomefreakall linux distros are different. windows is the same no matter what version you are on19:52
lantiziaI'm not saying every distro under the sun here... but Win / Mac / Linux is a little pithy considering how big a world Linux is19:52
lantiziayou just made my point gnomefreak19:52
[reed]not seeing the issue here19:53
gavinlinux is not a "big world" compared to windows and mac19:53
gavinin terms of users19:53
gnomefreaklantizia: no i didnt. Mozilla cant build for all linux distros way too many19:53
lantiziaand I'm not saying all19:53
[reed]we build once for Windows... if we had to build for every distro, it would take forever19:53
[reed]that's just not feasible19:53
[reed]and that's why distros have dedicated Mozilla maintainers19:53
lantiziaI never said every distro!19:53
[reed]well, if we start doing it for Ubuntu, some other distro is going to start complaining19:54
[reed]you can't pick favorites19:54
[reed]doesn't work well19:54
[reed]somebody will always complain19:54
lantiziayou don't need to!  you just pick standardised forms of delivery19:54
lantiziaa deb repository, a slackware one, an rpm one19:54
lantiziaanything else.. it's tar.gz time19:55
[reed]so, we have to build three different things for every one Windows build?19:55
lantiziaYUP!19:55
gnomefreakdont forget you have to patch for each distro too ;)19:55
[reed]even though we have like 80% (I just came up with that off the top of my head; not sure what the current number is) of our users on Windows?19:55
[reed]yeah, no thanks19:55
[reed]sorry, but we need to get real work done19:55
lantiziaYup.19:55
lantiziaYou Fail Sir.19:56
gnomefreakIDEA: instead of pissing and moaning how about helping with the builds for your fav distro19:56
[reed]we offer tarballs that work fine19:56
[reed]very childish19:56
micahg[reed]: just ignore it19:56
[reed]I mean, I'll support Linux all the way... but I'm also a realist.19:56
[reed]some things are just not feasible19:57
* gnomefreak thought about removing him a few times19:57
micahg[reed]: it's more complicated than he was letting on anyways19:58
[reed]I am very awake. :)19:58
[reed]er19:58
gavinmozilla releasing distro-specific packages isn't such a crazy idea19:58
micahgas you know19:58
[reed]aware*19:58
[reed]yeah19:58
gavinand deb/rpm would cover most of the popular bases19:58
gavinbut we're not the ones with that packaging expertise :)19:59
[reed]gavin: sadly, not very feasible with our current workload, though19:59
gavinthat's not true19:59
gavinif we wanted to do it we could19:59
[reed]I'm pretty sure releng would disagree19:59
[reed]if we wanted to dedicate somebody to building the framework, sure, but I don't see that as happening anytime soon at all20:00
gnomefreakdropping sunbird for that reason20:00
gnomefreak peopl +time+money20:00
gavinyou don't mean "feasible"20:00
gavinyou mean "not a priority"20:01
[reed]not feasible with the current workload ~= not a priority20:01
* gnomefreak forgot to get tarball 20:02
* gnomefreak be back need to eat and work on this20:03
gnomefreakmicahg: im out of here but with seamonkey-2.0 using get-orig-source it is grabbing 2.0_2.1 we need to grab 2.0.x20:43
gnomefreak^^ same reason why i havent had a newer build20:43
gnomefreakok night all20:43
micahggnomefreak: we need to fix the script in mozilla-devscripts then20:43
ftabetter to drop all scripts from m-d and move them to the packages20:44
micahgfta: that's what I thought20:45
ftahe expects a fix to magically appear, that won't happen20:45
ftathe fix is trivial, i've done it for tb3 already20:45
micahgfta: if that's approved, I can work on changing that when I update the various packages20:45
micahgfta: the TB3 script is still in m-devscripts, right?20:46
ftanope20:46
micahgit's in tb3?20:47
ftam-d has the old version, it's no longer used and should be dropped20:47
micahgah, ok20:47
micahgso we should migrate the scripts then from m-dev to the packages20:47
ftayes, tb3/tb31 have their own files20:47
mahfouzwhat will happen to firefox-3.7 package now22:02
mahfouzhttp://www.clickonf5.org/internet/firefox-37-dropped-development-schedule/660622:02
micahgmahfouz: not dropper22:05
micahg*dropped22:05
micahgmahfouz: http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/01/15/of-rumours-and-broken-telephones/22:06
mahfouzlol22:06
mahfouzthe way I understood it was that 3.7 might be merged into 3,622:07
mahfouzbut dunno if this is true22:07
micahgmahfouz: no22:07
micahgparts of 3.7 will be backported22:07
=== ripps_ is now known as ripps

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!