/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/01/25/#ubuntu-mozillateam.txt

asacmicahg: all good?00:17
micahgasac: it didn't run since I had uncommited changes..running now01:08
asacrunning?01:25
asacuncommitted changes usually work with bzr bd ... just not bzr rm i think01:31
micahgasac: not if files are missing :)01:34
micahgI removed 2 of the files from TB2 pkg dir01:35
micahgthe tb-dom-inspector01:35
asac02:31 < asac> uncommitted changes usually work with bzr bd ... just not bzr rm i think01:35
asactb2 pkg dir?01:35
asachow did that come in the branch again01:35
micahgmy fault01:36
asack01:36
asacso ... in any case, please push your stuff up to some private branch before you go off01:37
* micahg didn't know what was useless before01:37
micahgk01:37
asacotherwise i probabl ywould end up redoing anything01:37
asaci wouldnt have added anything01:37
asacuntil the package rename works01:37
asacthats too much at once01:37
asacfirs step: make package work01:37
asacsecond: improve01:37
asacbut ok01:38
* micahg knows for next time01:38
* micahg thought making =TB2 was step 101:38
asacthats why i said, you should copy your work when done to some other place and think about atomic steps you can split that up01:40
asachelops a lot when one does that01:41
micahgso, push to private branch01:41
micahgremerge small pieces into head?01:41
asacwell. better remerge small pieces into another private branch and give me the url when ready01:42
asaci will pull that in if its good :)01:42
micahgheh, ok01:42
asacsuch refactorings definitly require peer review ;)01:43
micahgit's nice to have peer review ;)01:43
micahglaptop at 81C01:44
asacheh01:47
asactoo much building01:47
micahgyeah01:48
micahgbuilding + flash01:54
asacflash is hot ;)02:01
asacyes02:01
micahgugh, my tarball is bad02:12
micahgI'll generate a new one from the tag02:13
joelinuxhi micah02:14
micahghi joelinux02:15
joelinuxsorry for jumping, but are you talking about a thunderbird tarball02:15
micahgjoelinux: yes02:16
joelinuxyou mentioned from a tag. Did you call with client.py to extract?02:16
micahgget-orig-source handles all that02:17
micahgonce it's set up02:17
joelinuxI was having a problem with that. I guess I had it set up wrong.02:17
joelinuxmicahg: I think the stuff I did on seamonkey can help out with TB02:27
micahgjoelinux: TB's not broke, it's  PEBKAC error02:28
joelinuxwhat PEBKAC?02:28
micahg!PEBKAC02:28
micahgproblem exists between keyboard and chair02:28
joelinux:-)02:29
* micahg hopes this is the last build for TB302:48
joelinuxAre you working on the stable branch, 3.0.1 or a different one?02:49
micahg3.002:49
* micahg is slamming his HD today02:49
joelinuxI bet02:50
micahgxfs02:50
micahgnot made for builds02:50
joelinuxreally. I usually go with ext3/402:50
joelinuxare you pulling the orig source each time?02:51
micahgno02:51
micahgbut it recreates the build env when you use a new tarball02:52
joelinuxgood, cause that really hurts the drive ( and bandwidth)02:52
micahgmaking builds hurts the drive too :(02:52
micahgunless they're scsi drives02:54
micahgasac: I pushed my branch up under myself03:35
micahgbuilt fine from start to finish03:35
micahgasac: I'm not going to be able to merge the finished product into smaller commits before tomorrow night03:56
micahgasac: here's the branch I pushed if you want to work on it: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~micahg/thunderbird/thunderbird.head-TB303:58
micahgasac: also report a bug doesn't quite work right, so I'd say drop the patch if you push it tomorrow04:02
tony__ anyone know where exactly in firefox it calls to the OS (linux specifically) to use a certain widget? reason being my widgets are messed up in kde 4.4 using firefox portable06:10
tony__the usual methods didn't work for portable firefox06:10
ArneGoetjeasac, ccheney: about the firefox-3.6 transition: how to proceed with the translations in Launchpad? merge xulrunner into firefox? Is this update for all releases?08:40
ArneGoetjedpm: ^08:40
BUGabundo_remotemorning08:53
akaiholahm, zero bugs in the team's launchpad bug tracker -- should I report straight upstream?10:08
asac_akaihola: you can report in ubuntu and upstrema ;)10:09
asac_and then connect the bugs10:10
asac_but in general yes, upstream is a better place to report firefox issues10:10
akaiholabetter than reverting to Lucid's firefox, verifying that the bug exists there and reporting on Launchpad?10:11
akaiholamy issue *might* be a metacity problem instead10:12
[reed]wait, how in the world did I miss the entire "multisearch" fiasco?10:31
asac_[reed]: seems you were disconnected ;)10:31
[reed]I guess so10:31
asac_i was sure you were here when everybody ranted ;)10:31
[reed]huh10:32
asac_but i think it was while you were off duty somewhat10:32
asac_how did that come up just noe?10:32
asac_now?10:32
[reed]I saw it mentioned somewhere10:33
[reed]it was mentioned in a comment on http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html10:33
asac_heh10:34
asac_i think today we will announce multisearch II ;)10:35
[reed]oh?10:35
[reed]lol10:35
[reed]good luck with that!10:36
* vish hands asac_ a shield ... [for the rotten eggs he might receive ] ;)10:39
BUGabundo_remotevish: ahaha10:40
vishBUGabundo_remote: heh , it was pretty funny , how the multisearch bug report became an asac_ hate-report ;)10:41
gavinmultisearch fiasco?10:44
BUGabundo_remotevish: even asac blog.... man ppl are BAD10:45
BUGabundo_remotethen again, I was among those, that didnt like my _regular_ searchs being intercepted, and removed the addon10:45
BUGabundo_remotemozilla 24285211:34
ubottuMozilla bug 242852 in Menus "I wish that "Copy link text" were a hyperlink contextual menu option" [Enhancement,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24285211:34
BUGabundo_remote:p11:34
dpmhi all, could someone help me in telling me whether the13:24
dpmoops, typed enter too fast13:25
dpmagain...13:25
asac_hi13:25
asac_;)13:25
dpmcould someone help me with bug 511837? I'm trying to tell if it's a translation issue13:25
ubottuLaunchpad bug 511837 in language-pack-ast "Latest language pack in 'karmic-proposed' breaks Firefox in Asturian" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/51183713:25
dpm:)13:25
eagles0513875hey asac:)13:27
asac_hi13:27
asac_dpm: the langpack thing moved to a different machine13:27
asac_talk to ArneGoetje13:27
asac_dont know what the status is13:27
asac_but it feels that langpacks could well be busted becaues of that migration13:27
dpmasac_ they seem to be ok for other languages, but that's a good point, ArneGoetje, do you think the 20090116 language pack PPA could have had the problem because of that?13:33
asac_dpm: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/language-pack-ast there is no package in karmic-proposed13:54
asac_e.g. i cant really look13:54
asac_if you can get me a .deb to check i can take a look how bad it is13:54
dpmasac_  thanks for looking. yes, I asked pitti to remove it from -proposed. It was the same as this one -> https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-langpack/+archive/ppa/+sourcepub/931940/+listing-archive-extra14:12
asac_dpm: the other langpacks are good?14:14
dpmasac_ I haven't tested them all, but at least the Catalan langpack I'm running did not give me any problems14:15
dpmlet me install a few...14:15
asac_thats strange then14:16
asac_please post your chrome.manifest files14:16
asac_... and you should definitly test all ... to prevent rollout14:16
asac_of an eventual busted thing from -proposed14:17
asac_unless pitti removed all now14:17
asac_if you hvae the langpack-o-matic log from that run it would be great14:18
asac_for now i would really think we should make a new run with the new infrastructure14:18
dpmasac_ yes, give me a sec and I'll post the chrome.manifest files... (we do call for testing and test them, that's why we first upload them to -proposed). ArneGoetje is running langpack-o-matic, so we'll have to wait until he comes back for the log14:19
dpmasac_ here are my chrome.manifest files (both are the same): http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/362625 let me see if I can install the broken asturian langpack and post their chrome.manifest files14:29
asac_both are the same? hmm.14:33
asac_that feels wrong to begin with14:33
asac_there is something fishy ... maybe arne manually uploadde a en-US.xpi14:33
asac_and thought they were the same14:33
asac_chrome.manifest is in /usr/lib/firefox-addons/extensions/...14:34
asac_anyway ... i have to go and try to fix my email/irc gateway14:34
dpmI'm not sure, but these are not giving me any (apparent problems). Yes, it is there14:34
dpm/usr/lib/firefox-addons/extensions/langpack-ca@firefox-3.5.ubuntu.com/chrome.manifest14:35
dpmand14:35
dpm/usr/lib/xulrunner-addons/extensions/langpack-ca@xulrunner-1.9.1.ubuntu.com/chrome.manifest14:36
ArneGoetjeasac_: I think you are right, might have been my fault...14:38
dpmArneGoetje, asac_ the Asturian ones look a bit different: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/36263814:41
asac_good... have to run out for a few hours to fix my email/irc stuff14:41
asac_bbthen14:41
dpmThey've got xulrunner-1.9.1-ast.jar or firefox-3.5-ast.jar instead of just ast.jar14:43
dpmArneGoetje, what do you think the problem might be, then?14:44
ArneGoetjedpm: like asac said, I uploaded a en-US.xpi and thought it was the same as the existing one...14:45
eagles0513875asac: if you have about 100 or so tabs open in ff does it crash on u im trying to determine if its just a bug in windows version of ff or also occurs on ubuntu as well14:46
ArneGoetjeeagles0513875: I recently had 146 tabs open in the 3.5 one on Karmic and it didn't crash.14:47
eagles0513875strange14:48
eagles0513875then its a windows bug14:48
eagles0513875causes strange runtime errors on windows14:48
micahgeagles0513875: we've had some reports of the same on linux14:48
micahgit's most likely caused by something in one of those tabs14:48
micahgIf/when oopp lands, it might help14:48
eagles0513875ok im thinking flash cuz friend of mine was talking to them about it and they said something about flash being the cause14:48
dpmArneGoetje, I'm just trying to understand it, so does this affect all languages? Or is it the cause of the -ast problem?14:49
ArneGoetjedpm: probably those which only have translations in launchpad and not upstream14:51
dpmArneGoetje, ok, so what do you think we should do? Do you think the translations for those languages be fixed, new langpacks only for them be built and then uploaded to -proposed?14:52
ArneGoetjedpm: let me take a look first14:53
dpmok, thanks ArneGoetje14:53
ArneGoetjedpm: yep, as I thought. I need to upload the proper en-US.xpi for firefox and xulrunner again... that should fix the problem.14:56
dpmArneGoetje, ah, ok. Oncee the new en-US.xpi template has been uploaded, would it be possible to request a build of the packages affected (if I understand it correctly only those languages translating directly upstream and only the language-pack-ll packages) on the PPA, so that we could copy them to -proposed?15:01
ArneGoetjedpm: I have to see15:02
dpmok, thanks!15:07
gnomefreakanyone able to give me an idea on what [flush-*] is in "ps aux" i have 18 of them15:08
* gnomefreak thinks 18 is too many15:08
gnomefreakhere is the screenshot of the flush process http://img130.imageshack.us/i/psaux.png/15:13
* vish looks at firefox and weeps at the fonts :s15:34
vishgnomefreak: what is the icon with the pond and ripple?15:35
gnomefreak?15:36
gnomefreakwhat/where is icon?15:36
vishgnomefreak: rather what app* .. in between the thunderbird and sunbird[or whatever]15:36
* gnomefreak still confused15:37
vishgnomefreak: what icon is to the left of the thunderbird icon? on the panel15:37
gnomefreakon my panel is tbird-215:38
gnomefreaksunbird-thunderbird-2- tb315:38
vishgnomefreak: the one in the red box> http://imagebin.ca/view/mxrATKyu.html15:41
vishthats from the image you posted above15:41
gnomefreakvish: yep that is tb215:41
gnomefreaki did?15:42
vishhuh... weird icon ;)15:42
vish <gnomefreak> here is the screenshot of the flush process http://img130.imageshack.us/i/psaux.png/15:42
* gnomefreak dont recall wher ei got it but i had a few (10) or so Mozilla icons15:42
vish;)15:42
gnomefreakvish: http://img130.imageshack.us/i/psaux.png/15:43
gnomefreaklook at top terminal15:43
* gnomefreak filed bug15:43
* vish has one flush-8.0 but doesnt know what it is ;)15:46
gnomefreakvish: its pdflush but that doesnt help me understnad it :)15:48
vishgnomefreak: in the sys monitor , waiting channel it says > bdi_writeback_task15:48
vishoh pdflush :D15:48
* gnomefreak needs to find out what file to edit to prevent deamons from loading15:49
* vish fades back into the woodwork15:49
* gnomefreak goes for smoke while i try to figure this out15:51
gnomefreakwas firefox-3.6 ever fixed? if so what repo?16:28
micahggnomefreak: yes, it's in lucid16:29
micahgas well as firefox-stable as per the channel note16:29
gnomefreakmicahg: so i can install firefox-3.6 or is there another package?16:29
micahghopefully the dailies still work16:29
gnomefreakmicahg: im upgrading now but as of this morning it does not16:30
micahggnomefreak: firefox-3.6 is now firefox16:30
micahgin dailies, lucid, and firefox-stable ppa16:31
gnomefreakok16:31
gnomefreakthanks16:31
gnomefreakthe stable PPA is the mozilla team PPA it seems16:32
micahggnomefreak: yes, it belongs to the team16:33
gnomefreakyep16:33
gnomefreakok thanks be back in a few16:34
jcastrosweet, the FF3.6 notify-osd stuff looks nice16:38
gnomefreakok micahg the package "firefox" is reserved to firefox-2.0 is this going to be changed so firefox == 3.*16:41
gnomefreakfor bug reports16:41
gnomefreaks/to/for16:42
vishgnomefreak: check out the flushes>  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/bootcharts/daniel-lucid-20100125-oldkernel.png16:46
gnomefreakvish: the flush amounts are expected?16:53
gnomefreakthat is also an old kernel we are on 2.6.32-1116:55
vishgnomefreak: i guess so.. that was from pitti's bootchart , they are cutting down boot time , so if it wasnt essential my guess is that they wouldnt be ther..  , he would know more..16:55
gnomefreakok thanks16:57
vishgnomefreak: heh , you scared me once into filing something similar ;p > Bug #40978416:57
ubottuLaunchpad bug 409784 in udev "102 instances of udev running !" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/40978416:57
gnomefreaki remember that bug, dont recall it being invalid16:58
gnomefreakyou filed it?16:59
vishyup16:59
gnomefreakwere you using another name?16:59
vishah , yeah , earlier i used > mac_v updated nick recently16:59
gnomefreakah16:59
* gnomefreak confused again. How is it ok to have 102 or ever 84 of the same process?17:02
vishgnomefreak: iirc , keybuk mentioned that during boot since several processes are running/loaded rapidly , udev has several instances running , but over time the instances reduce , so if 1 have 102 during boot  , it would be lesser over 6~12 hrs and keep reducing17:04
vishs/1/i17:05
gnomefreakoh17:05
gnomefreak!info firefox karmic17:11
ubottufirefox (source: firefox-3.5): meta package for the popular mozilla web browser. In component main, is optional. Version 3.5.7+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1 (karmic), package size 71 kB, installed size 128 kB17:11
gnomefreakasac_: any objection of approving Joe for MT membership?17:24
asac_gnomefreak: joe?17:28
asac_do i know him?17:28
asac_;)17:28
gnomefreakyeah hold ona  sec. Joe Lesko he is working on SM217:29
gnomefreakand looking to be a member as well as maintainer of SM2 but i need to really look at this package in its close to final state. micahg how is Sm2 going? Is there a chance to remove script and use debian/rules or is it close to being shipped? I havent looked at it since the most recent changes17:31
micahggnomefreak: from what I've discussed with him, it's going to need a little work17:31
micahgI haven't actually looked at it yet17:31
micahggnomefreak: BTW, you don't have to be a member to be a maintainer initially17:32
gnomefreakI'm more interested in the package following the same as all our other ones and nobinonly should be used17:32
gnomefreakmicahg: i know17:32
gnomefreakmembership allows you to use MT branches and PPA as i recall17:33
micahggnomefreak: he hacked up mozclient, so that's at least one thing that'll need to be fixed17:33
gnomefreakasac_: https://edge.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet17:33
asac_let him first contribute17:34
asac_we want new members to have actively contribute here before17:34
gnomefreakmicahg: im not going to have alot of time this week but i will grab the branch friday/saterday and look at it to see what i think17:34
asac_e.g. suggest merges17:34
gnomefreakasac_: you dont want the merge for SM2 atm it needs some more work17:35
asac_right. so he needs to be here17:35
asac_work with us on that17:35
asac_and when its ready we merge it17:35
asac_after a few times, he can become mt ;)17:35
gnomefreakmicahg: mozclient hacks == target changes?17:35
micahggnomefreak: tag changes17:36
gnomefreakyeah that17:36
micahghe made his own version of DEBIAN_TAG17:36
schmichaelif i want to use firefox 3.6 and firebug 1.5 on ubuntu 9.10, is there a particular version/package of firefox i should use?17:36
micahgschmichael: see the channel title17:36
schmichaelmicahg: i swear i actually googled before asking.  that counts for something right?17:36
gnomefreakIIRC 1.5 has a bunch of problems17:36
schmichaelthanks17:37
micahggnomefreak: fixed with ff3617:37
gnomefreakwith firefox-3.6 and up17:37
gnomefreakmicahg: did we get 1.5 in repos yet?17:37
micahggnomefreak: i don't think so17:37
gnomefreakwe were on 1.4*17:37
micahggnomefreak: jsut released17:37
gnomefreakk17:37
micahgschmichael: use upstream firebug17:37
micahgasac_: wrt TB3, do you want me to try again tonight...it needs work and I think I added too much17:38
schmichaelmicahg: always do, but thanks.  installing ff3.6 now17:38
asac_micahg: the .links file needs to go17:38
micahgasac_: yeah, I did that already17:38
micahgand I shouldn't have imported the cdbs folder either17:39
* micahg has learned that just becuase it's there doesn't make it necessary :)17:39
micahggnomefreak: firebug 1.5 is in unstable in debian17:39
schmichaelmicahg: works beautifully, no more segfaults with fb1.5.  thanks!17:40
gnomefreakmicahg: k17:40
micahggnomefreak: firebug 1.5 should be in lucid in about 2 weeks17:40
gnomefreakk17:41
micahgwas uploaded to unstable yesterday17:41
micahgasac_: so, should I try again tonight?17:42
=== vish is now known as \vish
asac_micahg: i fixed the .links locally18:01
asac_micahg: i will let you know18:01
asac_have to check if its good afterwards18:01
* asac_ drinks a hot tea before going on the road again18:02
gnomefreakasac_: what are we doing with the package "firefox" in LP for bugs?18:07
asac_we continue using it ;)18:07
asac_haha18:07
asac_back to roots18:07
gnomefreakasac_: for firefox-2? or will it be used for >=3.518:08
asac_for 3.6 onwards18:08
gnomefreakk18:08
gnomefreakmicahg: do you know if we added this fix to 3.618:11
gnomefreakhttp://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/454c8ec86b1e18:11
gnomefreakthat fix18:12
gnomefreakor are we only fixing it in 3.718:12
[reed]gnomefreak: that is 3.7 only18:22
micahggnomefreak: I updated find the right package to say firefox for firefox 3.6+18:27
gnomefreakthanks [reed] and micahg18:36
gnomefreakanyone else notice that (i think its the mozillateam PPA) is not working?18:37
micahggnomefreak: can you define not working?18:38
gnomefreakits fta's and mozillateam18:38
gnomefreakW: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu/dists/lucid/main/source/Sources.gz  404  Not Found18:38
gnomefreaksources and binaries18:38
micahggnomefreak: that's not used AFAIK18:38
gnomefreakmicahg: what isnt used?18:39
micahgthat PPA18:39
gnomefreakthat is the mozillateam PPA18:39
micahggnomefreak: for what?18:39
gnomefreakmicahg: if not what is the stable firefox PPA18:39
micahggnomefreak: see channel title18:39
gnomefreakmicahg: that is the one i had18:39
micahggnomefreak: https://edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable18:39
gnomefreakmicahg: i used the command and it said i had it already18:39
micahggnomefreak: k?18:39
micahgdid you add the mozilla team ppa as well?18:40
micahgnothing in there for karmic or lucid18:40
gnomefreakmicahg: already had it as i always had18:40
micahggnomefreak: well, it's empty  for karmic and lucid, so you might want to disable or you'll get errors18:41
gnomefreakgpg: key CE49EC21: "Launchpad PPA for Mozilla Team" not changed18:41
gnomefreakthat is what i get using the command in topic18:41
micahggnomefreak: so you already have it18:42
micahgbut that's not the ppa you mentioned before18:42
gnomefreakmicahg: i had mozillateam PPA not the one in topic that is what it told me though18:43
micahgmozillateam/ppa != mozillateam/firefox-stable18:43
gnomefreakmicahg: that is not correct. they are not the same18:43
gnomefreakoh yeah sorry18:43
gnomefreakmicahg: than it would be great to know why it said i had it and didnt add the firefox-stable one18:44
micahggnomefreak: I think it's a bug18:44
micahgyou already have the key so it might not add the repo18:44
gnomefreakwe should add the PPA link to topic instead if it is a bug18:44
micahggnomefreak:  apt-cache policy | grep firefox-stable18:44
gnomefreakW: Duplicate sources.list entry http://ppa.launchpad.net lucid/main Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/ppa.launchpad.net_mozillateam_firefox-stable_ubuntu_dists_lucid_main_binary-i386_Packages)18:44
micahggnomefreak: seems like you ran it twice18:45
gnomefreaknomefreak@Development:~$ policy |grep firefox-stable release v=10.04,o=LP-PPA-mozillateam-firefox-stable,a=lucid,n=lucid,l=Firefox Stable Channel Packages,c=main18:45
micahgyep, you got it18:45
gnomefreakmicahg: its only in there one time18:45
micahgso you're good, what's the problem?18:45
gnomefreakmicahg: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362786/18:46
gnomefreakmicahg: I should not get any error or warning from PPA18:46
micahgyou have that and you added the repo with sudo add-apt-repo?18:47
gnomefreakno matter how hard i look there is only 1 in there for stable. Im going to guess its the name of the PPA apt doesnt understand18:47
gnomefreakmicahg: i did the first time but it gave me same thing so i than added it by hand still same thing18:48
micahggnomefreak: you probably have an additional entry in /etc/apt/sources.list.d18:48
gnomefreakgiv eme a minute18:48
gnomefreaki might have fixed it but not sure yet18:50
gnomefreaknope still saying dup18:51
gnomefreakfixed18:53
gnomefreak3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3 is not fixed, when is planned fix for dailies?18:55
* gnomefreak would love to avoid pinning it if possible18:56
* gnomefreak brb smoke18:56
ftawhat is broken?18:57
gnomefreakfta: firefox in daily builds19:01
gnomefreak3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd319:02
ftawhich part?19:02
gnomefreakfta: it wont launch19:02
gnomefreakit was fixed (so i hear) in firefox-stable PPA19:02
ftahm, broken here too, but it's apparmor19:04
jdstrandfta: what is broken, the 3.6 daily? in what way?19:04
gnomefreakfta: should we add the apparmor fix19:05
gnomefreakjdstrand: dailies wont launch19:05
ftajdstrand, http://paste.ubuntu.com/362794/19:05
mbanaasac: hi, i was saying have u managed to fix it19:05
mbana_you_19:05
jdstrandgnomefreak: can you paste your dmesg?19:05
gnomefreakjdstrand: full output http://paste.ubuntu.com/362796/19:06
gnomefreakits at the bottom19:06
jdstrandthat is an old profile name19:07
jdstrandgnomefreak: can you paste the output of 'ls -l /etc/apparmor.d'?19:07
gnomefreakhttp://paste.ubuntu.com/362797/ is not the same as fta's19:07
gnomefreakjdstrand: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362799/19:08
gnomefreak3.7 works great19:09
ftamine is from yesterday, i'm upgrading right now19:09
jdstrandgnomefreak: can you give the output of 'dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox19:09
jdstrand'19:09
gnomefreaknomefreak@Development:~$ 'dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox'19:10
gnomefreakbash: dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox: No such file or directory19:10
jdstrandthe problem is that there are two apparmor conffiles that are competing for the binary-- the first is what should be used, the second is what is being used19:11
jdstrandgnomefreak: do that command without the single quotes19:12
gnomefreakirefox-3.6: /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.619:13
gnomefreakfirefox: /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox19:13
* gnomefreak checks19:13
gnomefreakthere should be an f in there19:13
jdstrandhmmm19:13
jdstrandok19:13
jdstrandgnomefreak: for now, just do 'sudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6' and 'sudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox'19:14
jdstrandgnomefreak: that will unload the problematic profile, but only until next reboot19:15
jdstrandgnomefreak: is this on lucid I presume?19:15
gnomefreakjdstrand: yes lucid19:15
jdstrandk19:16
gnomefreakjdstrand: doesnt help19:16
gnomefreakbash: sudo apparmor_parser -R etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6: No such file or directory   same with "firefox"19:17
jdstrandgnomefreak: can you paste dmeg19:17
jdstrandgnomefreak: do that without the single quotes19:17
jdstrand(forget the dmesg)19:17
gnomefreakok now it starts19:18
jdstrandok19:18
gnomefreakjdstrand: you got what you need from me for this bug?19:19
jdstrandgnomefreak: yes19:19
gnomefreakjdstrand: ok thanks i can go do housework :)19:19
jdstrandgnomefreak: thanks for the info19:20
gnomefreakjdstrand: anytime19:20
jdstrandasac: we are going to want to do another upload of firefox on lucid19:21
ftastill broken after the upgrade19:46
jdstrandfta: is your brokeness due to apparmor?19:54
ftayes19:54
jdstrandfta: can you paste your dmesg?19:54
jdstrandfta: and also 'sudo aa-status'19:55
ftahttp://paste.ubuntu.com/362825/19:55
ftahttp://paste.ubuntu.com/362826/19:56
jdstrandfta: please give the output of 'ls /etc/apparmor.d'19:56
ftaabstractions  disable         sbin.dhclient3  usr.bin.evince   usr.bin.firefox-3.5  usr.bin.firefox-3.7  usr.sbin.mysqld20:00
ftacache         force-complain  tunables        usr.bin.firefox  usr.bin.firefox-3.6  usr.sbin.cupsd       usr.sbin.tcpdump20:00
ftasame bug i assume20:00
jdstrandfta: I think so. can you do the following:20:01
ftai can wait, i don't use it20:01
ftaso i'll be able to test the fix20:01
jdstrandsudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; sudo apparmor_parser -r usr.bin.firefox20:01
jdstrandfta: that will unload the old one and load the new20:02
jdstrandfta: it should work then20:02
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
asacjdstrand: we need to fix ffox for hardy etc.20:29
asacseems we use apparmor commands that arent there yet20:29
asacor did you already fix that?20:29
asac(remember something with -W)20:29
jdstrandasac: we should not be enabling apparmor on < 9.1020:29
asacyes20:30
asacbut i want to keep the packaging identical if possible20:30
jdstrandasac: well, we should not even consider it in the packaging20:30
asacwould that work?20:30
asacour dailies were always built from the .head branch for all ubuntu releases20:30
asacwould like to get back to that20:31
jdstrandasac: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362853/20:31
jdstrandasac: this should already be handled in the 3.6 packaging20:31
jdstrandasac: ^20:31
asachmm20:32
asacsince when?20:32
jdstranda while20:32
asacyesterday someone came here and had postinst issue20:32
asacwith some apparmor.*-W20:32
asaccall20:32
asacor was that saturday? not sure20:32
asaci will check the logs20:32
jdstrandthat was saturday20:32
jdstrandthis has been in there a long time before that20:33
asac[14:23] <White_Sloun> it seems that on ubuntu 9.04 you dont need to call apparmor_parser with -W -T20:33
jdstrandI think it was on jaunty20:33
jdstrandyeah20:33
asaccan we do something about that?20:33
jdstrandI can remove the -W and -T20:33
jdstrandthey aren't needed any more20:34
asacok cool20:34
asacwill that help for jaunty?20:34
asacor does it indicate there is something else broken that he ended up with that issue at all?20:34
jdstrandupgrades should disable the profile20:34
jdstrand(in preinst)20:34
jdstrandif he enabled the profile and then did a dpkg-reconfigure, it could trigger it20:35
jdstrandasac: I don't think we will have to immediately upload 3.6 ubuntu2 to lucid after thinking about it. it should only hit people who use dailies. they will have the fix after I finish testing my patch20:37
asacjdstrand: ┼Áhy does it hit dailies worse?20:37
jdstrandasac: I'm talking about a different issue20:38
asacright. even there i wonder why dalies suffer more20:38
jdstrandasac: the one gnomefreak and fta are hitting has to do with the renaming20:38
asacdailies are the same packaging afaik20:38
asacyes ... but the same package is also in lucid :)20:38
jdstrandasac: what is happening is that before the rename, we had /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.520:38
jdstranderr20:38
jdstrandfirefox-3.620:38
asacyes20:39
jdstrandafter the rename we have /etc/apparmor.d/ufw.bin.firefox20:39
jdstrandheh20:39
asacah ... so conffile crazyness again ;)20:39
jdstrands/ufw/usr/20:39
jdstrandyes20:39
asacmodified?20:39
asacouch20:39
asacman20:39
jdstrandI didn't remove usr.bin.firefox-3.620:39
ftaasac, the "... will check again next time." message is weird20:39
jdstrandno not modified20:39
asaci knew that apparmore needs ral defaults in /usr/share ;)(20:39
asacjdstrand: yes, but the -3.6 doesnt get removed autonmatically?20:39
jdstrandasac: no, it didn't20:39
jdstrandasac: and the -3.6 one had a liberal glob, so they didn't get the dirname fixes that went into usr.bin.firefox20:40
asacah right20:40
asacok20:40
jdstrandboth profiles load, but the binary matches the -3.6 one20:40
asaci think i understand why only daily users suffer20:41
jdstrandso I am just going to remove the 3.6 one if it is unchanged for shipped. if it is changed, I am going to mv it to -3.6.dpkg-old, which apparmor will ignore20:41
jdstrandasac: right, a lucid user never had the -3.6 on disk20:41
asacshouldnt we also somehow ensure that the 3.5 apparmor file gets removed?20:41
asacotherwise it feels like clutter20:41
asacjdstrand: yes. if its modified, keep it renamed20:42
asaclikt .conf-old20:42
asaclike20:42
jdstrandasac: from a clutter PoV we could, but from an apparmor PoV there is no need20:42
jdstrand(for 3.5)20:42
asacjdstrand: yes. i would think just startup time20:42
asacparsing a not needed profile20:42
jdstrandin lucid the profile is cached-- the load is about as instantaneous as you can get (as fast as it can be read off disk just about)20:43
jdstrand(and karmic)20:43
asacjdstrand: yes, but remember that we will also push that package to karmic eventually20:43
asacah20:43
asacyou say its also cached in karmic?20:43
asacand jaunty doesnt have all this yes... ok20:44
jdstrandstill, it would be nice to not have it if firefox-3.5 is no longer available20:44
jdstrandjaunty doesn't have a 3.5 profile, no20:44
asacbut 3.0? ;)20:44
asacj.k. i think we never added it there20:44
jdstrandor 3.0 :)20:44
jdstrandright, just in karmic20:45
* jdstrand knew you were kidding :)20:45
asachehe20:45
asacok i think thats all good. so lets fix it on .head20:45
asacthen dailies get fixed automatically20:45
asacand lucid gets properly fixed on next upload20:45
asacwill probably happen not that far in future20:46
jdstrandasac: right20:46
jdstrandasac: so you'll pull .head into the lucid branch?20:46
jdstrandasac: (whenever you are ready)20:46
=== and`_ is now known as and`
asacjdstrand: we dont have a lucid branch20:49
asacakak .head is the lucid branch20:49
asacjdstrand: you can just add a new changelog with UNRELEASED (if there isnt one) on top20:50
asacand there you go20:50
asaci think i already started next revision20:50
jdstrandasac: that is what I was planning-- you mentioning .head made me think there might be something somewhere else :)20:51
jdstrandasac: you did start the next revision20:51
jdstrandasac: I'm afraid to do anything with the firefox-3.5 profile atm. since it is common packaging and firefox-3.5 is still around in dailies and the archive20:53
jdstrandasac: we can do something with it when firefox-3.5 is gone unless you have another idea20:53
micahgasac: if firefox-3.5 even installable in the dailies anymore20:54
micahgjdstrand: archive branches are separate for firefox-3.520:54
* jdstrand nods20:55
micahgexcept for lucid, which should be removed from archive (I think)20:55
jdstrandif firefox-3.5 is gone from the dailies, then we should technically be ok20:56
micahgasac: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/38314073/upload_1463388_log.txt20:58
micahgwe either need to move ff35 to a firefox-old daily ppa or drop it20:58
jdstrandbtw, firefox-3.6 in the dailies hasn't built since 20100117 afaict20:59
jdstrand(just looking at versions available via apt)20:59
jdstrandthat was on karmic iirc20:59
jdstrandhttp://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa/ubuntu/pool/main/f/firefox-3.6/21:00
micahgjdstrand:  3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~karmic21:00
micahgjdstrand: wrong source21:00
micahgfirefox-3.6 is firefox now21:01
jdstrandah, of course21:01
jdstrandmicahg: thanks21:01
=== cyphermo1 is now known as cyphermox
azteechanyone know if there is a ubuntu-branded version out for firefox 3.5/3.6, 64-bit 9.04?21:29
azteechnow there is one out for 9.10 .. but am running 9.0421:29
micahgazteech: Ubuntu branded?21:29
azteechyep ..21:30
micahgazteech: firefox 3.6 available in PPA per title of channel21:30
micahgazteech: we have Firefox and Abrowser21:30
azteechtried that - but all I get down is the 3.0 version ...21:30
micahgThere is no "ubuntu" branding21:30
micahg3.0?21:30
azteechyep ...21:31
micahghow21:31
micahghow are you installing?21:31
azteechand when I specifically tell it to download firefox-3.6 I get a pre-release version .. that is giving me fits with java sites ...21:31
micahgazteech: there is no more firefox-3.621:31
micahgit's firefox now21:32
azteechsudo apt-get install firefox21:32
micahgazteech: what does sudo apt-get dist-upgrade show?21:32
ccheneyif he still sees a firefox-3.6 that is probably part of his problem, he must have some other ppa in his sources.list21:33
azteechReading package lists... Done21:33
azteechBuilding dependency tree21:33
azteechReading state information... Done21:33
azteechCalculating upgrade... Done21:33
azteech0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.21:33
azteechstevan@linuxmystique:~$21:33
micahgazteech: apt-cache policy firefox21:34
azteechthat is what I get with dist-upgrade21:34
azteechfirefox:21:35
azteech  Installed: 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty21:35
azteech  Candidate: 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty21:35
azteech  Version table:21:35
azteech *** 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty 021:35
azteech        500 http://ppa.launchpad.net jaunty/main Packages21:35
azteech        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status21:35
azteech     3.0.17+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 021:35
azteech        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-updates/main Packages21:35
micahgazteech: try pastebin next time21:35
azteech        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-security/main Packages21:35
azteech     3.0.8+nobinonly-0ubuntu3 021:35
azteech        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages21:35
azteechwhen I look at the about info, for the version that downloaded it says it is a pre-release version ...21:35
micahgazteech: you don't have the firefox-stable ppa21:36
azteechokay ..21:36
azteechsorry ..21:36
azteechdon't usually send that much, so forget about pastebin ..21:36
azteechokay, so then I need to load the firefox-stable ppa into sources?21:36
micahgazteech: yes21:37
* micahg forgot the command in title won't work on jaunty21:37
micahgazteech: https://edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable21:37
azteechmicahg - okay, thanks, will load that in and see if that helps then. tks again :)21:38
micahgazteech: come back if you need more help21:39
azteechI will, thanks again ..21:39
ccheneyasac: ugh finally running into the problem i had expected of duplicate symbols in the source source c file :-\ i think i have to break the c file into the original files now21:50
ccheneys/source/same21:51
BUGabundobRoas o/21:56
asacccheney: where is the current patch?22:02
micahgasac: branding for ff seems to be in universe in the lucid package22:03
ccheneyasac: haven't regenerated it today yet22:19
ccheneyasac: i'll stick it up on my chinstrap incoming in a minute22:19
ccheneyasac: ok its there now22:21
ccheneyapparently its not the first collision i have had its just the first that caused a miscompile22:23
ccheneywell not really miscompile, it probably already had that issue, first to fail to compile entirely is more accurate22:25
asack22:27
* ccheney is glad he did a partial cleanup of the giant source file before, makes it much easier to split it up22:29
ftaasac, any news about the review?22:30
azteechmicahg : what you pointed me to worked like a champ. However, still experiencing issues with Java. Which version of java works with the new 3.6? What I had loaded was 6.0.02; but when I look at extensions, I am still being told it is not compatible, and sites I know use java are experiencing display issues.22:35
BUGabundofta: Ch is snapping agin22:35
BUGabundo:(22:35
micahgazteech: java console?22:36
azteechyep ..22:36
ftaBUGabundo, doing what?22:36
azteechand, suspecting jre as well22:36
micahgazteech: uninstall it, it stopped working in 3.5 iirc22:36
BUGabundofta: opening pages22:36
BUGabundoI'm seeing it in karmic22:36
* micahg forgot the workaround22:36
BUGabundonot lucid22:36
azteechokay. what do I use in lieu of?22:36
BUGabundostrangely enough22:36
BUGabundooh and firefox 3.7 in karmic lost its icon :(22:37
fta*sigh*22:38
BUGabundoI'm upgrading my laptop now22:39
BUGabundolets see what happens22:39
BUGabundowill restart Ch and try to snap it22:39
azteechmicahg: never mind - ff just advised it found an update - after it loaded the console update, it came back and said no longer works in 3.6 and that it would automatically be uninstalled at next reboot -22:40
micahgazteech: see if this has any answers: https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using+the+Java+plugin+with+Firefox22:40
micahgyep22:41
azteechthaks, reading it now. Appreciate the help.22:41
azteechs/thaks/thanks22:41
azteechanyone know if java version 6 update 10, or later is in the repositories?23:10
micahgazteech: for jaunty 16 is in updates23:11
azteechokay, thanks.23:11
asacccheney: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362935/23:42
asacis that the error you are expecting?23:43
asacor did i grab the wrong patch?23:43

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