[18:32] <lantizia> When FX 3.6 comes out... will we get it in 9.10 or will a PPA be needed?
[18:32] <lantizia> And 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 unreleased
[18:34] <gnomefreak> lantizia: we have a PPA already for dailies and yes there is a good chance it will make it in Lucid
[18:34] <gnomefreak> lantizia: i think we ar3e waiting for a decision to be made about 3.7 becoming 3.6
[18:35] <lantizia> gnomefreak, 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 repositories
[18:35] <gnomefreak> lantizia: it will make it into Lucid
[18:35] <lantizia> So 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 unstable
[18:35] <lantizia> Why not have a PPA that only contains the final builds from Mozilla?
[18:36] <gnomefreak> lantizia: right now IIRC there is a building bug that her hit and he pushed the packaging to asac since he lost avlaible time
[18:36] <gnomefreak> lantizia: we were supposed to make one but dont know if we did or not
[18:36] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 3.0 is stable but our dailies are from pre-security release
[18:37] <lantizia> As 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 myself
[18:37] <gnomefreak> same with 3.5
[18:37] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 1st you dont want to do that. that only causes issues on your system. second we have stable tb3.0 in a PPA
[18:38] <lantizia> gnomefreak, which PPA?
[18:38] <gnomefreak> like i said with that in our daily PPA is just securityl releases that we are ahead of
[18:38] <lantizia> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa ?
[18:38] <gnomefreak> yes that looks right. 1 sec
[18:38] <gnomefreak> yep that is the one
[18:39] <lantizia> OK 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] <lantizia> I know 3.6 isn't final... but it's close enough lol
[18:40] <gnomefreak> Installed: 3.0.2~hg20100115r4635+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1   << is stable just using nightlys for the security releases example 3.0.2....
[18:40] <lantizia> gnomefreak, so that 3.0.2 of TB is the same build as Mozilla would have out in the .tar.gz and .exe ?
[18:40] <micahg> lantizia: I have the final TB3 in a ppa
[18:41] <micahg> still branded as shredder
[18:41] <micahg> lantizia: also 3.6 will end up in all stable releases
[18:41] <lantizia> I don't want anything branded as anything other than FX and TB
[18:41] <micahg> lantizia: then you'll have to wait
[18:41] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 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 them
[18:41] <gnomefreak> hi micahg
[18:41] <micahg> hi gnomefreak
[18:41] <lantizia> Hey I'm not moaning about whats being done, I'm asking where stuff is
[18:41] <lantizia> Or what exactly is it
[18:42] <gnomefreak> i gave you that info already :)
[18:42] <lantizia> No, no you really really didn't
[18:42] <gnomefreak> lantizia: tb3 in daily PPA is final except that we are using nightly snapshots from pre-secuityl release
[18:42] <lantizia> I'm after the repo equivalent of Mozilla current released builds only... is that what exists in that PPA?
[18:43] <gnomefreak> it will get into Lucid as soon as we can get it in there
[18:43] <lantizia> Well I'm not on Lucid so I don't care about that
[18:43] <gnomefreak> micahg: did we ever set up the sttable PPA for all releases?
[18:43] <micahg> gnomefreak: not yet
[18:43] <micahg> probably towards the end of the lucid cycle
[18:44] <gnomefreak> micahg: ok i had offered to package them but i ran out of time nad i asked someone to open PPA
[18:44] <micahg> gnomefreak: we need to decide on a convention for the PPAs still
[18:45] <gnomefreak> micahg: makes sense :) i am so behind in Lucid dev cycle :(
[18:45] <micahg> gnomefreak: I'm further behind then I would have liked
[18:46] <gnomefreak> i have to deal with court/personal life before i can sit down and work all day most of the weeks like i was.
[18:47] <gnomefreak> court just happens to be in NJ so i have to drive up there for a week or so here and there until its done
[18:47] <gnomefreak> ~9-10 hour drive
[18:47] <lantizia> ok giving thunderbird-3.0 and firefox-3.6 a go from that PPA
[18:48] <gnomefreak> micahg: do you have the PPa fo the SM2 build. i woiuld like to use it and test it :)
[18:48] <micahg> gnomefreak: not yet
[18:48] <lantizia> And it's branded as Shredder!
[18:48] <gnomefreak> micahg: ok
[18:48] <lantizia> W T F
[18:48] <micahg> I can give you the link to the guy's ppa
[18:48] <micahg> s/ppa/bzr repo/
[18:48] <gnomefreak> lantizia: it will be since we are using nightly snapshots
[18:48] <micahg> lantizia: dailies are shredder
[18:48] <micahg> lantizia: Mozilla has branding restrictions, hence debian ships icedove
[18:48] <lantizia> Well then that is just hopeless... If I want a genuine final build I have to use .tar.gz
[18:49] <gnomefreak> once it hits Lucid it will be named thunderbird
[18:49] <lantizia> I know all about the branding restrictions but if you just made a final build .deb then everything would be cool
[18:49] <micahg> lantizia: not necessarily
[18:49] <lantizia> i.e. you can use the real branding
[18:49] <micahg> we're not necessarily allowed to do that
[18:49] <gnomefreak> ok i give up do what you feel like doing but you will most likely run into problems when we push it into lucid
[18:49] <lantizia> Well you do with the ones you ship with the main distro
[18:49] <micahg> lantizia: yes, those go through branding review
[18:50] <lantizia> and the review entails what?
[18:51] <gnomefreak> IIRC 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 problem
[18:51] <gnomefreak> the review process is why Debian uses ice*
[18:52] <lantizia> So every binary built package of mozilla products need to be uploaded to mozilla for them to approve?
[18:52] <gnomefreak> they want no strigs attached for non free licences
[18:52] <micahg> lantizia: no, but we have to clarify what we can brand
[18:52] <gnomefreak> lantizia: no
[18:52] <lantizia> Well exactly
[18:52] <lantizia> if it is the final build that you have you built - you can use their branding!
[18:53] <lantizia> because it's exactly what they've released - bar software updates disabled
[18:53] <micahg> lantizia: no it's not
[18:53] <gnomefreak> lantizia: yes for most part
[18:53] <gnomefreak> the release is not the same
[18:53] <lantizia> the changes you make tho will already be ones mozilla are aware of since it's been done half a dozen times before
[18:55] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 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 Mozilla
[18:55] <lantizia> mozilla may be protective over their branding - but I think canonical have taken things way too far here
[18:55] <lantizia> if it's a final build it deserves the original branding... and if possible putting in the main repository for the people who want it
[18:56] <lantizia> even if it is an RC it should have the original branding - just like mozilla do... and attempt to replace the existing installation
[18:56] <gnomefreak> lantizia: that in an opinon. define too far. Conanica are within the rights that we have for non free licenses
[18:56] <lantizia> theres plenty about ubuntu thats already non-free, just like debian
[18:57] <gnomefreak> WE CANT ALWAYS DO THAT
[18:58] <gnomefreak> apport updates shouldnt be affected by feature freeze AFAIK, thinking upstream apport is from a Ubuntu dev
[18:59] <lantizia> qua?
[19:02] <gnomefreak> micahg:Pitti is the upstream apport dev isnt he?
[19:03] <micahg> gnomefreak: yeah, but what's the issue?
[19:04] <gnomefreak> micahg: 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 upstream
[19:04] <gnomefreak> we can use some hooks for our pakcages. i just dont do hooks
[19:04] <micahg> gnomefreak: yes, we do use hooks
[19:05] <micahg> gnomefreak: I filed the bug :)
[19:05] <gnomefreak> micahg: not for all our packages example Sm sb
[19:05] <micahg> gnomefreak: right
[19:05] <micahg> but we have them for FF
[19:05] <gnomefreak> do you yhave bug handy
[19:05] <micahg> gnomefreak: for apport?
[19:05] <gnomefreak> micahg: FF thunderbird
[19:08] <micahg> gnomefreak: FF already has hooks
[19:08] <gnomefreak> yes and so does TB IIRC
[19:09] <micahg> gnomefreak: AFAIK, TB doesn't yet
[19:09] <gnomefreak> oh i thought we did that a while ago maybe a couple of years
[19:10] <gnomefreak> freddy and someone else were supposed to do that
[19:10] <gnomefreak> as i recall
[19:10] <micahg> well, it's not in TB2
[19:10] <micahg> FF35 has hooks
[19:11] <gnomefreak> than i guess they never finished it or even started it but they said they would oh well
[19:13] <gnomefreak> be back in a few
[19:19] <gnomefreak> if 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 it
[19:19] <lantizia> gnomefreak, micahg: I mean consider VLC... they keep a PPA up to date with the latest (final) version  of any build
[19:19] <gnomefreak> micahg: ^^^
[19:20] <lantizia> Now I'm not expecting Mozilla to do this, they're obviously lazy... but it would be nice if Ubuntu did
[19:20] <lantizia> both 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 projects
[19:20] <micahg> gnomefreak: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet/+junk/seamonkey2
[19:21] <gnomefreak> lantizia: we havent set ours up yet please read above
[19:21] <micahg> lantizia: mozilla is not lazy, they're very busy
[19:21] <micahg> lantizia: VLC has different terms
[19:21] <gnomefreak> so are we :)
[19:21] <lantizia> micahg, OK they have the wrong priorities then
[19:21] <lantizia> If 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] <micahg> lantizia: they provide builds for that
[19:22] <gnomefreak> lantizia: no Mozilla app is "free"
[19:22] <micahg> go to firefox.com
[19:22] <lantizia> They provide ONE .tar.gz lol
[19:22] <lantizia> And not even a 64 bit build
[19:23] <lantizia> If Ubuntu had the same number of user as Windows tomorrow... You'd quickly see Mozilla start up a repository
[19:23] <micahg> sorry, I'm in the middle of a doc jam right now, so I can't really have this conversation right now
[19:23] <lantizia> It's hypocrisy!
[19:24] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 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.
[19:25] <gnomefreak> Mozilla never said they would provide this or that so they cant be hipocits
[19:26] <lantizia> By their very message of spreading freedom... yes they are
[19:26] <lantizia> At least VLC make the effort for multi-distro release and they are MUCH MUCH smaller a project
[19:27] <gnomefreak> lantizia: VLC has how many seperate apps?
[19:27] <gnomefreak> lantizia:
[19:28] <lantizia> 5
[19:28] <gnomefreak> mozilla is also having issues on the usehow many does Mozilla have?
[19:29] <lantizia> probably countless
[19:29] <lantizia> but a big majority are not desktop apps
[19:29] <lantizia> or are specialised to a specific OS on purpose
[19:34] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 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 platforms
[19:35] <lantizia> But 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 mission
[19:35] <gnomefreak> and pay thier people on the payroll
[19:37] <gnomefreak> lantizia: 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/mac
[19:38] <gnomefreak> i 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.
[19:39] <gnomefreak> gr 3.6 is still giving 9
[19:39] <gnomefreak> problems not 9
[19:41] <micahg> gnomefreak: ??
[19:41] <gnomefreak> micahg: unresponsive script
[19:42] <gnomefreak> 3.5 3.7 do not have this problem
[19:42] <micahg> gnomefreak: well, all 3 have the code for it
[19:45] <[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] <gnomefreak> micahg: something wrong with that branch. it cant grab it
[19:46] <lantizia> [reed], with windows you double click and your away... can you say that for the linux offering from mozilla?
[19:46] <gnomefreak> oops my fault
[19:46] <[reed]> sure, why not? you can unpack a tarball and run it directly from that directory
[19:46] <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 repo
[19:46] <[reed]> I keep my firefox install as /home/reed/firefox/
[19:46] <[reed]> works fine
[19:47] <lantizia> [reed], yes I know HOW you use it... I'm on about the simplicity
[19:47] <[reed]> and then every Linux distro would want us to repackage it... that responsibility falls to the Mozilla maintainers for each Linux distro
[19:47] <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 novice
[19:48] <lantizia> [reed], and I say... GOOD
[19:48] <[reed]> I never do that
[19:48] <[reed]> all works fine for me
[19:48] <lantizia> Mozilla _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 earlier
[19:50] <lantizia> sod 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 versions
[19:50] <[reed]> again, that's the job of the Mozilla maintainer for that distro
[19:50] <[reed]> that's always been our pledge
[19:51] <lantizia> oh and I suppose it's up to Microsoft to make the setup.exe program for Firefox too is it?
[19:51] <lantizia> And apple for the dmg image?
[19:52] <gnomefreak> all linux distros are different. windows is the same no matter what version you are on
[19:52] <lantizia> I'm not saying every distro under the sun here... but Win / Mac / Linux is a little pithy considering how big a world Linux is
[19:52] <lantizia> you just made my point gnomefreak
[19:53] <[reed]> not seeing the issue here
[19:53] <gavin> linux is not a "big world" compared to windows and mac
[19:53] <gavin> in terms of users
[19:53] <gnomefreak> lantizia: no i didnt. Mozilla cant build for all linux distros way too many
[19:53] <lantizia> and I'm not saying all
[19:53] <[reed]> we build once for Windows... if we had to build for every distro, it would take forever
[19:53] <[reed]> that's just not feasible
[19:53] <[reed]> and that's why distros have dedicated Mozilla maintainers
[19:53] <lantizia> I never said every distro!
[19:54] <[reed]> well, if we start doing it for Ubuntu, some other distro is going to start complaining
[19:54] <[reed]> you can't pick favorites
[19:54] <[reed]> doesn't work well
[19:54] <[reed]> somebody will always complain
[19:54] <lantizia> you don't need to!  you just pick standardised forms of delivery
[19:54] <lantizia> a deb repository, a slackware one, an rpm one
[19:55] <lantizia> anything else.. it's tar.gz time
[19:55] <[reed]> so, we have to build three different things for every one Windows build?
[19:55] <lantizia> YUP!
[19:55] <gnomefreak> dont 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 thanks
[19:55] <[reed]> sorry, but we need to get real work done
[19:55] <lantizia> Yup.
[19:56] <lantizia> You Fail Sir.
[19:56] <gnomefreak> IDEA: instead of pissing and moaning how about helping with the builds for your fav distro
[19:56] <[reed]> we offer tarballs that work fine
[19:56] <[reed]> very childish
[19:56] <micahg> [reed]: just ignore it
[19:56] <[reed]> I mean, I'll support Linux all the way... but I'm also a realist.
[19:57] <[reed]> some things are just not feasible
[19:57]  * gnomefreak thought about removing him a few times
[19:58] <micahg> [reed]: it's more complicated than he was letting on anyways
[19:58] <[reed]> I am very awake. :)
[19:58] <[reed]> er
[19:58] <gavin> mozilla releasing distro-specific packages isn't such a crazy idea
[19:58] <micahg> as you know
[19:58] <[reed]> aware*
[19:58] <[reed]> yeah
[19:58] <gavin> and deb/rpm would cover most of the popular bases
[19:59] <gavin> but we're not the ones with that packaging expertise :)
[19:59] <[reed]> gavin: sadly, not very feasible with our current workload, though
[19:59] <gavin> that's not true
[19:59] <gavin> if we wanted to do it we could
[19:59] <[reed]> I'm pretty sure releng would disagree
[20:00] <[reed]> if we wanted to dedicate somebody to building the framework, sure, but I don't see that as happening anytime soon at all
[20:00] <gnomefreak> dropping sunbird for that reason
[20:00] <gnomefreak>  peopl +time+money
[20:00] <gavin> you don't mean "feasible"
[20:01] <gavin> you mean "not a priority"
[20:01] <[reed]> not feasible with the current workload ~= not a priority
[20:02]  * gnomefreak forgot to get tarball 
[20:03]  * gnomefreak be back need to eat and work on this
[20:43] <gnomefreak> micahg: 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.x
[20:43] <gnomefreak> ^^ same reason why i havent had a newer build
[20:43] <gnomefreak> ok night all
[20:43] <micahg> gnomefreak: we need to fix the script in mozilla-devscripts then
[20:44] <fta> better to drop all scripts from m-d and move them to the packages
[20:45] <micahg> fta: that's what I thought
[20:45] <fta> he expects a fix to magically appear, that won't happen
[20:45] <fta> the fix is trivial, i've done it for tb3 already
[20:45] <micahg> fta: if that's approved, I can work on changing that when I update the various packages
[20:46] <micahg> fta: the TB3 script is still in m-devscripts, right?
[20:46] <fta> nope
[20:47] <micahg> it's in tb3?
[20:47] <fta> m-d has the old version, it's no longer used and should be dropped
[20:47] <micahg> ah, ok
[20:47] <micahg> so we should migrate the scripts then from m-dev to the packages
[20:47] <fta> yes, tb3/tb31 have their own files
[22:02] <mahfouz> what will happen to firefox-3.7 package now
[22:02] <mahfouz> http://www.clickonf5.org/internet/firefox-37-dropped-development-schedule/6606
[22:05] <micahg> mahfouz: not dropper
[22:05] <micahg> *dropped
[22:06] <micahg> mahfouz: http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/01/15/of-rumours-and-broken-telephones/
[22:06] <mahfouz> lol
[22:07] <mahfouz> the way I understood it was that 3.7 might be merged into 3,6
[22:07] <mahfouz> but dunno if this is true
[22:07] <micahg> mahfouz: no
[22:07] <micahg> parts of 3.7 will be backported