[00:17] <asac> micahg: all good?
[01:08] <micahg> asac: it didn't run since I had uncommited changes..running now
[01:25] <asac> running?
[01:31] <asac> uncommitted changes usually work with bzr bd ... just not bzr rm i think
[01:34] <micahg> asac: not if files are missing :)
[01:35] <micahg> I removed 2 of the files from TB2 pkg dir
[01:35] <micahg> the tb-dom-inspector
[01:35] <asac> 02:31 < asac> uncommitted changes usually work with bzr bd ... just not bzr rm i think
[01:35] <asac> tb2 pkg dir?
[01:35] <asac> how did that come in the branch again
[01:36] <micahg> my fault
[01:36] <asac> k
[01:37] <asac> so ... in any case, please push your stuff up to some private branch before you go off
[01:37]  * micahg didn't know what was useless before
[01:37] <micahg> k
[01:37] <asac> otherwise i probabl ywould end up redoing anything
[01:37] <asac> i wouldnt have added anything
[01:37] <asac> until the package rename works
[01:37] <asac> thats too much at once
[01:37] <asac> firs step: make package work
[01:37] <asac> second: improve
[01:38] <asac> but ok
[01:38]  * micahg knows for next time
[01:38]  * micahg thought making =TB2 was step 1
[01:40] <asac> thats why i said, you should copy your work when done to some other place and think about atomic steps you can split that up
[01:41] <asac> helops a lot when one does that
[01:41] <micahg> so, push to private branch
[01:41] <micahg> remerge small pieces into head?
[01:42] <asac> well. better remerge small pieces into another private branch and give me the url when ready
[01:42] <asac> i will pull that in if its good :)
[01:42] <micahg> heh, ok
[01:43] <asac> such refactorings definitly require peer review ;)
[01:43] <micahg> it's nice to have peer review ;)
[01:44] <micahg> laptop at 81C
[01:47] <asac> heh
[01:47] <asac> too much building
[01:48] <micahg> yeah
[01:54] <micahg> building + flash
[02:01] <asac> flash is hot ;)
[02:01] <asac> yes
[02:12] <micahg> ugh, my tarball is bad
[02:13] <micahg> I'll generate a new one from the tag
[02:14] <joelinux> hi micah
[02:15] <micahg> hi joelinux
[02:15] <joelinux> sorry for jumping, but are you talking about a thunderbird tarball
[02:16] <micahg> joelinux: yes
[02:16] <joelinux> you mentioned from a tag. Did you call with client.py to extract?
[02:17] <micahg> get-orig-source handles all that
[02:17] <micahg> once it's set up
[02:17] <joelinux> I was having a problem with that. I guess I had it set up wrong.
[02:27] <joelinux> micahg: I think the stuff I did on seamonkey can help out with TB
[02:28] <micahg> joelinux: TB's not broke, it's  PEBKAC error
[02:28] <joelinux> what PEBKAC?
[02:28] <micahg> !PEBKAC
[02:28] <micahg> problem exists between keyboard and chair
[02:29] <joelinux> :-)
[02:48]  * micahg hopes this is the last build for TB3
[02:49] <joelinux> Are you working on the stable branch, 3.0.1 or a different one?
[02:49] <micahg> 3.0
[02:49]  * micahg is slamming his HD today
[02:50] <joelinux> I bet
[02:50] <micahg> xfs
[02:50] <micahg> not made for builds
[02:50] <joelinux> really. I usually go with ext3/4
[02:51] <joelinux> are you pulling the orig source each time?
[02:51] <micahg> no
[02:52] <micahg> but it recreates the build env when you use a new tarball
[02:52] <joelinux> good, cause that really hurts the drive ( and bandwidth)
[02:52] <micahg> making builds hurts the drive too :(
[02:54] <micahg> unless they're scsi drives
[03:35] <micahg> asac: I pushed my branch up under myself
[03:35] <micahg> built fine from start to finish
[03:56] <micahg> asac: I'm not going to be able to merge the finished product into smaller commits before tomorrow night
[03:58] <micahg> asac: here's the branch I pushed if you want to work on it: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~micahg/thunderbird/thunderbird.head-TB3
[04:02] <micahg> asac: also report a bug doesn't quite work right, so I'd say drop the patch if you push it tomorrow
[06:10] <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 portable
[06:10] <tony__> the usual methods didn't work for portable firefox
[08:40] <ArneGoetje> asac, 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] <ArneGoetje> dpm: ^
[08:53] <BUGabundo_remote> morning
[10:08] <akaihola> hm, zero bugs in the team's launchpad bug tracker -- should I report straight upstream?
[10:09] <asac_> akaihola: you can report in ubuntu and upstrema ;)
[10:10] <asac_> and then connect the bugs
[10:10] <asac_> but in general yes, upstream is a better place to report firefox issues
[10:11] <akaihola> better than reverting to Lucid's firefox, verifying that the bug exists there and reporting on Launchpad?
[10:12] <akaihola> my issue *might* be a metacity problem instead
[10:31] <[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 so
[10:31] <asac_> i was sure you were here when everybody ranted ;)
[10:32] <[reed]> huh
[10:32] <asac_> but i think it was while you were off duty somewhat
[10:32] <asac_> how did that come up just noe?
[10:32] <asac_> now?
[10:33] <[reed]> I saw it mentioned somewhere
[10:33] <[reed]> it was mentioned in a comment on http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html
[10:34] <asac_> heh
[10:35] <asac_> i think today we will announce multisearch II ;)
[10:35] <[reed]> oh?
[10:35] <[reed]> lol
[10:36] <[reed]> good luck with that!
[10:39]  * vish hands asac_ a shield ... [for the rotten eggs he might receive ] ;)
[10:40] <BUGabundo_remote> vish: ahaha
[10:41] <vish> BUGabundo_remote: heh , it was pretty funny , how the multisearch bug report became an asac_ hate-report ;)
[10:44] <gavin> multisearch fiasco?
[10:45] <BUGabundo_remote> vish: even asac blog.... man ppl are BAD
[10:45] <BUGabundo_remote> then again, I was among those, that didnt like my _regular_ searchs being intercepted, and removed the addon
[11:34] <BUGabundo_remote> mozilla 242852
[11:34] <BUGabundo_remote> :p
[13:24] <dpm> hi all, could someone help me in telling me whether the
[13:25] <dpm> oops, typed enter too fast
[13:25] <dpm> again...
[13:25] <asac_> hi
[13:25] <asac_> ;)
[13:25] <dpm> could someone help me with bug 511837? I'm trying to tell if it's a translation issue
[13:25] <dpm> :)
[13:27] <eagles0513875> hey asac:)
[13:27] <asac_> hi
[13:27] <asac_> dpm: the langpack thing moved to a different machine
[13:27] <asac_> talk to ArneGoetje
[13:27] <asac_> dont know what the status is
[13:27] <asac_> but it feels that langpacks could well be busted becaues of that migration
[13:33] <dpm> asac_ 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?
[13:54] <asac_> dpm: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/language-pack-ast there is no package in karmic-proposed
[13:54] <asac_> e.g. i cant really look
[13:54] <asac_> if you can get me a .deb to check i can take a look how bad it is
[14:12] <dpm> asac_  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-extra
[14:14] <asac_> dpm: the other langpacks are good?
[14:15] <dpm> asac_ I haven't tested them all, but at least the Catalan langpack I'm running did not give me any problems
[14:15] <dpm> let me install a few...
[14:16] <asac_> thats strange then
[14:16] <asac_> please post your chrome.manifest files
[14:16] <asac_> ... and you should definitly test all ... to prevent rollout
[14:17] <asac_> of an eventual busted thing from -proposed
[14:17] <asac_> unless pitti removed all now
[14:18] <asac_> if you hvae the langpack-o-matic log from that run it would be great
[14:18] <asac_> for now i would really think we should make a new run with the new infrastructure
[14:19] <dpm> asac_ 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 log
[14:29] <dpm> asac_ 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 files
[14:33] <asac_> both are the same? hmm.
[14:33] <asac_> that feels wrong to begin with
[14:33] <asac_> there is something fishy ... maybe arne manually uploadde a en-US.xpi
[14:33] <asac_> and thought they were the same
[14:34] <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 gateway
[14:34] <dpm> I'm not sure, but these are not giving me any (apparent problems). Yes, it is there
[14:35] <dpm> /usr/lib/firefox-addons/extensions/langpack-ca@firefox-3.5.ubuntu.com/chrome.manifest
[14:35] <dpm> and
[14:36] <dpm> /usr/lib/xulrunner-addons/extensions/langpack-ca@xulrunner-1.9.1.ubuntu.com/chrome.manifest
[14:38] <ArneGoetje> asac_: I think you are right, might have been my fault...
[14:41] <dpm> ArneGoetje, asac_ the Asturian ones look a bit different: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/362638
[14:41] <asac_> good... have to run out for a few hours to fix my email/irc stuff
[14:41] <asac_> bbthen
[14:43] <dpm> They've got xulrunner-1.9.1-ast.jar or firefox-3.5-ast.jar instead of just ast.jar
[14:44] <dpm> ArneGoetje, what do you think the problem might be, then?
[14:45] <ArneGoetje> dpm: like asac said, I uploaded a en-US.xpi and thought it was the same as the existing one...
[14:46] <eagles0513875> asac: 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 well
[14:47] <ArneGoetje> eagles0513875: I recently had 146 tabs open in the 3.5 one on Karmic and it didn't crash.
[14:48] <eagles0513875> strange
[14:48] <eagles0513875> then its a windows bug
[14:48] <eagles0513875> causes strange runtime errors on windows
[14:48] <micahg> eagles0513875: we've had some reports of the same on linux
[14:48] <micahg> it's most likely caused by something in one of those tabs
[14:48] <micahg> If/when oopp lands, it might help
[14:48] <eagles0513875> ok im thinking flash cuz friend of mine was talking to them about it and they said something about flash being the cause
[14:49] <dpm> ArneGoetje, I'm just trying to understand it, so does this affect all languages? Or is it the cause of the -ast problem?
[14:51] <ArneGoetje> dpm: probably those which only have translations in launchpad and not upstream
[14:52] <dpm> ArneGoetje, 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?
[14:53] <ArneGoetje> dpm: let me take a look first
[14:53] <dpm> ok, thanks ArneGoetje
[14:56] <ArneGoetje> dpm: yep, as I thought. I need to upload the proper en-US.xpi for firefox and xulrunner again... that should fix the problem.
[15:01] <dpm> ArneGoetje, 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?
[15:02] <ArneGoetje> dpm: I have to see
[15:07] <dpm> ok, thanks!
[15:08] <gnomefreak> anyone able to give me an idea on what [flush-*] is in "ps aux" i have 18 of them
[15:08]  * gnomefreak thinks 18 is too many
[15:13] <gnomefreak> here is the screenshot of the flush process http://img130.imageshack.us/i/psaux.png/
[15:34]  * vish looks at firefox and weeps at the fonts :s
[15:35] <vish> gnomefreak: what is the icon with the pond and ripple?
[15:36] <gnomefreak> ?
[15:36] <gnomefreak> what/where is icon?
[15:36] <vish> gnomefreak: rather what app* .. in between the thunderbird and sunbird[or whatever]
[15:37]  * gnomefreak still confused
[15:37] <vish> gnomefreak: what icon is to the left of the thunderbird icon? on the panel
[15:38] <gnomefreak> on my panel is tbird-2
[15:38] <gnomefreak> sunbird-thunderbird-2- tb3
[15:41] <vish> gnomefreak: the one in the red box> http://imagebin.ca/view/mxrATKyu.html
[15:41] <vish> thats from the image you posted above
[15:41] <gnomefreak> vish: yep that is tb2
[15:42] <gnomefreak> i did?
[15:42] <vish> huh... 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 icons
[15:42] <vish> ;)
[15:43] <gnomefreak> vish: http://img130.imageshack.us/i/psaux.png/
[15:43] <gnomefreak> look at top terminal
[15:43]  * gnomefreak filed bug
[15:46]  * vish has one flush-8.0 but doesnt know what it is ;)
[15:48] <gnomefreak> vish: its pdflush but that doesnt help me understnad it :)
[15:48] <vish> gnomefreak: in the sys monitor , waiting channel it says > bdi_writeback_task
[15:48] <vish> oh pdflush :D
[15:49]  * gnomefreak needs to find out what file to edit to prevent deamons from loading
[15:49]  * vish fades back into the woodwork
[15:51]  * gnomefreak goes for smoke while i try to figure this out
[16:28] <gnomefreak> was firefox-3.6 ever fixed? if so what repo?
[16:29] <micahg> gnomefreak: yes, it's in lucid
[16:29] <micahg> as well as firefox-stable as per the channel note
[16:29] <gnomefreak> micahg: so i can install firefox-3.6 or is there another package?
[16:29] <micahg> hopefully the dailies still work
[16:30] <gnomefreak> micahg: im upgrading now but as of this morning it does not
[16:30] <micahg> gnomefreak: firefox-3.6 is now firefox
[16:31] <micahg> in dailies, lucid, and firefox-stable ppa
[16:31] <gnomefreak> ok
[16:31] <gnomefreak> thanks
[16:32] <gnomefreak> the stable PPA is the mozilla team PPA it seems
[16:33] <micahg> gnomefreak: yes, it belongs to the team
[16:33] <gnomefreak> yep
[16:34] <gnomefreak> ok thanks be back in a few
[16:38] <jcastro> sweet, the FF3.6 notify-osd stuff looks nice
[16:41] <gnomefreak> ok micahg the package "firefox" is reserved to firefox-2.0 is this going to be changed so firefox == 3.*
[16:41] <gnomefreak> for bug reports
[16:42] <gnomefreak> s/to/for
[16:46] <vish> gnomefreak: check out the flushes>  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/bootcharts/daniel-lucid-20100125-oldkernel.png
[16:53] <gnomefreak> vish: the flush amounts are expected?
[16:55] <gnomefreak> that is also an old kernel we are on 2.6.32-11
[16:55] <vish> gnomefreak: 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..
[16:57] <gnomefreak> ok thanks
[16:57] <vish> gnomefreak: heh , you scared me once into filing something similar ;p > Bug #409784
[16:58] <gnomefreak> i remember that bug, dont recall it being invalid
[16:59] <gnomefreak> you filed it?
[16:59] <vish> yup
[16:59] <gnomefreak> were you using another name?
[16:59] <vish> ah , yeah , earlier i used > mac_v updated nick recently
[16:59] <gnomefreak> ah
[17:02]  * gnomefreak confused again. How is it ok to have 102 or ever 84 of the same process?
[17:04] <vish> gnomefreak: 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 reducing
[17:05] <vish> s/1/i
[17:05] <gnomefreak> oh
[17:11] <gnomefreak> !info firefox karmic
[17:24] <gnomefreak> asac_: any objection of approving Joe for MT membership?
[17:28] <asac_> gnomefreak: joe?
[17:28] <asac_> do i know him?
[17:28] <asac_> ;)
[17:29] <gnomefreak> yeah hold ona  sec. Joe Lesko he is working on SM2
[17:31] <gnomefreak> and 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 changes
[17:31] <micahg> gnomefreak: from what I've discussed with him, it's going to need a little work
[17:31] <micahg> I haven't actually looked at it yet
[17:32] <micahg> gnomefreak: BTW, you don't have to be a member to be a maintainer initially
[17:32] <gnomefreak> I'm more interested in the package following the same as all our other ones and nobinonly should be used
[17:32] <gnomefreak> micahg: i know
[17:33] <gnomefreak> membership allows you to use MT branches and PPA as i recall
[17:33] <micahg> gnomefreak: he hacked up mozclient, so that's at least one thing that'll need to be fixed
[17:33] <gnomefreak> asac_: https://edge.launchpad.net/~joe-nationnet
[17:34] <asac_> let him first contribute
[17:34] <asac_> we want new members to have actively contribute here before
[17:34] <gnomefreak> micahg: 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 think
[17:34] <asac_> e.g. suggest merges
[17:35] <gnomefreak> asac_: you dont want the merge for SM2 atm it needs some more work
[17:35] <asac_> right. so he needs to be here
[17:35] <asac_> work with us on that
[17:35] <asac_> and when its ready we merge it
[17:35] <asac_> after a few times, he can become mt ;)
[17:35] <gnomefreak> micahg: mozclient hacks == target changes?
[17:36] <micahg> gnomefreak: tag changes
[17:36] <gnomefreak> yeah that
[17:36] <micahg> he made his own version of DEBIAN_TAG
[17:36] <schmichael> if 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] <micahg> schmichael: see the channel title
[17:36] <schmichael> micahg: i swear i actually googled before asking.  that counts for something right?
[17:36] <gnomefreak> IIRC 1.5 has a bunch of problems
[17:37] <schmichael> thanks
[17:37] <micahg> gnomefreak: fixed with ff36
[17:37] <gnomefreak> with firefox-3.6 and up
[17:37] <gnomefreak> micahg: did we get 1.5 in repos yet?
[17:37] <micahg> gnomefreak: i don't think so
[17:37] <gnomefreak> we were on 1.4*
[17:37] <micahg> gnomefreak: jsut released
[17:37] <gnomefreak> k
[17:37] <micahg> schmichael: use upstream firebug
[17:38] <micahg> asac_: wrt TB3, do you want me to try again tonight...it needs work and I think I added too much
[17:38] <schmichael> micahg: always do, but thanks.  installing ff3.6 now
[17:38] <asac_> micahg: the .links file needs to go
[17:38] <micahg> asac_: yeah, I did that already
[17:39] <micahg> and I shouldn't have imported the cdbs folder either
[17:39]  * micahg has learned that just becuase it's there doesn't make it necessary :)
[17:39] <micahg> gnomefreak: firebug 1.5 is in unstable in debian
[17:40] <schmichael> micahg: works beautifully, no more segfaults with fb1.5.  thanks!
[17:40] <gnomefreak> micahg: k
[17:40] <micahg> gnomefreak: firebug 1.5 should be in lucid in about 2 weeks
[17:41] <gnomefreak> k
[17:41] <micahg> was uploaded to unstable yesterday
[17:42] <micahg> asac_: so, should I try again tonight?
[18:01] <asac_> micahg: i fixed the .links locally
[18:01] <asac_> micahg: i will let you know
[18:01] <asac_> have to check if its good afterwards
[18:02]  * asac_ drinks a hot tea before going on the road again
[18:07] <gnomefreak> asac_: what are we doing with the package "firefox" in LP for bugs?
[18:07] <asac_> we continue using it ;)
[18:07] <asac_> haha
[18:07] <asac_> back to roots
[18:08] <gnomefreak> asac_: for firefox-2? or will it be used for >=3.5
[18:08] <asac_> for 3.6 onwards
[18:08] <gnomefreak> k
[18:11] <gnomefreak> micahg: do you know if we added this fix to 3.6
[18:11] <gnomefreak> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/454c8ec86b1e
[18:12] <gnomefreak> that fix
[18:12] <gnomefreak> or are we only fixing it in 3.7
[18:22] <[reed]> gnomefreak: that is 3.7 only
[18:27] <micahg> gnomefreak: I updated find the right package to say firefox for firefox 3.6+
[18:36] <gnomefreak> thanks [reed] and micahg
[18:37] <gnomefreak> anyone else notice that (i think its the mozillateam PPA) is not working?
[18:38] <micahg> gnomefreak: can you define not working?
[18:38] <gnomefreak> its fta's and mozillateam
[18:38] <gnomefreak> W: Failed to fetch http://ppa.launchpad.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu/dists/lucid/main/source/Sources.gz  404  Not Found
[18:38] <gnomefreak> sources and binaries
[18:38] <micahg> gnomefreak: that's not used AFAIK
[18:39] <gnomefreak> micahg: what isnt used?
[18:39] <micahg> that PPA
[18:39] <gnomefreak> that is the mozillateam PPA
[18:39] <micahg> gnomefreak: for what?
[18:39] <gnomefreak> micahg: if not what is the stable firefox PPA
[18:39] <micahg> gnomefreak: see channel title
[18:39] <gnomefreak> micahg: that is the one i had
[18:39] <micahg> gnomefreak: https://edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable
[18:39] <gnomefreak> micahg: i used the command and it said i had it already
[18:39] <micahg> gnomefreak: k?
[18:40] <micahg> did you add the mozilla team ppa as well?
[18:40] <micahg> nothing in there for karmic or lucid
[18:40] <gnomefreak> micahg: already had it as i always had
[18:41] <micahg> gnomefreak: well, it's empty  for karmic and lucid, so you might want to disable or you'll get errors
[18:41] <gnomefreak> gpg: key CE49EC21: "Launchpad PPA for Mozilla Team" not changed
[18:41] <gnomefreak> that is what i get using the command in topic
[18:42] <micahg> gnomefreak: so you already have it
[18:42] <micahg> but that's not the ppa you mentioned before
[18:43] <gnomefreak> micahg: i had mozillateam PPA not the one in topic that is what it told me though
[18:43] <micahg> mozillateam/ppa != mozillateam/firefox-stable
[18:43] <gnomefreak> micahg: that is not correct. they are not the same
[18:43] <gnomefreak> oh yeah sorry
[18:44] <gnomefreak> micahg: than it would be great to know why it said i had it and didnt add the firefox-stable one
[18:44] <micahg> gnomefreak: I think it's a bug
[18:44] <micahg> you already have the key so it might not add the repo
[18:44] <gnomefreak> we should add the PPA link to topic instead if it is a bug
[18:44] <micahg> gnomefreak:  apt-cache policy | grep firefox-stable
[18:44] <gnomefreak> W: 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)
[18:45] <micahg> gnomefreak: seems like you ran it twice
[18:45] <gnomefreak> nomefreak@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=main
[18:45] <micahg> yep, you got it
[18:45] <gnomefreak> micahg: its only in there one time
[18:45] <micahg> so you're good, what's the problem?
[18:46] <gnomefreak> micahg: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362786/
[18:46] <gnomefreak> micahg: I should not get any error or warning from PPA
[18:47] <micahg> you have that and you added the repo with sudo add-apt-repo?
[18:47] <gnomefreak> no 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 understand
[18:48] <gnomefreak> micahg: i did the first time but it gave me same thing so i than added it by hand still same thing
[18:48] <micahg> gnomefreak: you probably have an additional entry in /etc/apt/sources.list.d
[18:48] <gnomefreak> giv eme a minute
[18:50] <gnomefreak> i might have fixed it but not sure yet
[18:51] <gnomefreak> nope still saying dup
[18:53] <gnomefreak> fixed
[18:55] <gnomefreak> 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3 is not fixed, when is planned fix for dailies?
[18:56]  * gnomefreak would love to avoid pinning it if possible
[18:56]  * gnomefreak brb smoke
[18:57] <fta> what is broken?
[19:01] <gnomefreak> fta: firefox in daily builds
[19:02] <gnomefreak> 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3
[19:02] <fta> which part?
[19:02] <gnomefreak> fta: it wont launch
[19:02] <gnomefreak> it was fixed (so i hear) in firefox-stable PPA
[19:04] <fta> hm, broken here too, but it's apparmor
[19:04] <jdstrand> fta: what is broken, the 3.6 daily? in what way?
[19:05] <gnomefreak> fta: should we add the apparmor fix
[19:05] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: dailies wont launch
[19:05] <fta> jdstrand, http://paste.ubuntu.com/362794/
[19:05] <mbana> asac: hi, i was saying have u managed to fix it
[19:05] <mbana> _you_
[19:05] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: can you paste your dmesg?
[19:06] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: full output http://paste.ubuntu.com/362796/
[19:06] <gnomefreak> its at the bottom
[19:07] <jdstrand> that is an old profile name
[19:07] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: can you paste the output of 'ls -l /etc/apparmor.d'?
[19:07] <gnomefreak> http://paste.ubuntu.com/362797/ is not the same as fta's
[19:08] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362799/
[19:09] <gnomefreak> 3.7 works great
[19:09] <fta> mine is from yesterday, i'm upgrading right now
[19:09] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: can you give the output of 'dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox
[19:09] <jdstrand> '
[19:10] <gnomefreak> nomefreak@Development:~$ 'dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox'
[19:10] <gnomefreak> bash: dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; dpkg -S /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox: No such file or directory
[19:11] <jdstrand> the 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 used
[19:12] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: do that command without the single quotes
[19:13] <gnomefreak> irefox-3.6: /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6
[19:13] <gnomefreak> firefox: /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox
[19:13]  * gnomefreak checks
[19:13] <gnomefreak> there should be an f in there
[19:13] <jdstrand> hmmm
[19:13] <jdstrand> ok
[19:14] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: 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'
[19:15] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: that will unload the problematic profile, but only until next reboot
[19:15] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: is this on lucid I presume?
[19:15] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: yes lucid
[19:16] <jdstrand> k
[19:16] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: doesnt help
[19:17] <gnomefreak> bash: sudo apparmor_parser -R etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6: No such file or directory   same with "firefox"
[19:17] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: can you paste dmeg
[19:17] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: do that without the single quotes
[19:17] <jdstrand> (forget the dmesg)
[19:18] <gnomefreak> ok now it starts
[19:18] <jdstrand> ok
[19:19] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: you got what you need from me for this bug?
[19:19] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: yes
[19:19] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: ok thanks i can go do housework :)
[19:20] <jdstrand> gnomefreak: thanks for the info
[19:20] <gnomefreak> jdstrand: anytime
[19:21] <jdstrand> asac: we are going to want to do another upload of firefox on lucid
[19:46] <fta> still broken after the upgrade
[19:54] <jdstrand> fta: is your brokeness due to apparmor?
[19:54] <fta> yes
[19:54] <jdstrand> fta: can you paste your dmesg?
[19:55] <jdstrand> fta: and also 'sudo aa-status'
[19:55] <fta> http://paste.ubuntu.com/362825/
[19:56] <fta> http://paste.ubuntu.com/362826/
[19:56] <jdstrand> fta: please give the output of 'ls /etc/apparmor.d'
[20:00] <fta> abstractions  disable         sbin.dhclient3  usr.bin.evince   usr.bin.firefox-3.5  usr.bin.firefox-3.7  usr.sbin.mysqld
[20:00] <fta> cache         force-complain  tunables        usr.bin.firefox  usr.bin.firefox-3.6  usr.sbin.cupsd       usr.sbin.tcpdump
[20:00] <fta> same bug i assume
[20:01] <jdstrand> fta: I think so. can you do the following:
[20:01] <fta> i can wait, i don't use it
[20:01] <fta> so i'll be able to test the fix
[20:01] <jdstrand> sudo apparmor_parser -R /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.6 ; sudo apparmor_parser -r usr.bin.firefox
[20:02] <jdstrand> fta: that will unload the old one and load the new
[20:02] <jdstrand> fta: it should work then
[20:29] <asac> jdstrand: we need to fix ffox for hardy etc.
[20:29] <asac> seems we use apparmor commands that arent there yet
[20:29] <asac> or did you already fix that?
[20:29] <asac> (remember something with -W)
[20:29] <jdstrand> asac: we should not be enabling apparmor on < 9.10
[20:30] <asac> yes
[20:30] <asac> but i want to keep the packaging identical if possible
[20:30] <jdstrand> asac: well, we should not even consider it in the packaging
[20:30] <asac> would that work?
[20:30] <asac> our dailies were always built from the .head branch for all ubuntu releases
[20:31] <asac> would like to get back to that
[20:31] <jdstrand> asac: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362853/
[20:31] <jdstrand> asac: this should already be handled in the 3.6 packaging
[20:31] <jdstrand> asac: ^
[20:32] <asac> hmm
[20:32] <asac> since when?
[20:32] <jdstrand> a while
[20:32] <asac> yesterday someone came here and had postinst issue
[20:32] <asac> with some apparmor.*-W
[20:32] <asac> call
[20:32] <asac> or was that saturday? not sure
[20:32] <asac> i will check the logs
[20:32] <jdstrand> that was saturday
[20:33] <jdstrand> this has been in there a long time before that
[20:33] <asac> [14:23] <White_Sloun> it seems that on ubuntu 9.04 you dont need to call apparmor_parser with -W -T
[20:33] <jdstrand> I think it was on jaunty
[20:33] <jdstrand> yeah
[20:33] <asac> can we do something about that?
[20:33] <jdstrand> I can remove the -W and -T
[20:34] <jdstrand> they aren't needed any more
[20:34] <asac> ok cool
[20:34] <asac> will that help for jaunty?
[20:34] <asac> or does it indicate there is something else broken that he ended up with that issue at all?
[20:34] <jdstrand> upgrades should disable the profile
[20:34] <jdstrand> (in preinst)
[20:35] <jdstrand> if he enabled the profile and then did a dpkg-reconfigure, it could trigger it
[20:37] <jdstrand> asac: 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 patch
[20:37] <asac> jdstrand: ŵhy does it hit dailies worse?
[20:38] <jdstrand> asac: I'm talking about a different issue
[20:38] <asac> right. even there i wonder why dalies suffer more
[20:38] <jdstrand> asac: the one gnomefreak and fta are hitting has to do with the renaming
[20:38] <asac> dailies are the same packaging afaik
[20:38] <asac> yes ... but the same package is also in lucid :)
[20:38] <jdstrand> asac: what is happening is that before the rename, we had /etc/apparmor.d/usr.bin.firefox-3.5
[20:38] <jdstrand> err
[20:38] <jdstrand> firefox-3.6
[20:39] <asac> yes
[20:39] <jdstrand> after the rename we have /etc/apparmor.d/ufw.bin.firefox
[20:39] <jdstrand> heh
[20:39] <asac> ah ... so conffile crazyness again ;)
[20:39] <jdstrand> s/ufw/usr/
[20:39] <jdstrand> yes
[20:39] <asac> modified?
[20:39] <asac> ouch
[20:39] <asac> man
[20:39] <jdstrand> I didn't remove usr.bin.firefox-3.6
[20:39] <fta> asac, the "... will check again next time." message is weird
[20:39] <jdstrand> no not modified
[20:39] <asac> i knew that apparmore needs ral defaults in /usr/share ;)(
[20:39] <asac> jdstrand: yes, but the -3.6 doesnt get removed autonmatically?
[20:39] <jdstrand> asac: no, it didn't
[20:40] <jdstrand> asac: and the -3.6 one had a liberal glob, so they didn't get the dirname fixes that went into usr.bin.firefox
[20:40] <asac> ah right
[20:40] <asac> ok
[20:40] <jdstrand> both profiles load, but the binary matches the -3.6 one
[20:41] <asac> i think i understand why only daily users suffer
[20:41] <jdstrand> so 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 ignore
[20:41] <jdstrand> asac: right, a lucid user never had the -3.6 on disk
[20:41] <asac> shouldnt we also somehow ensure that the 3.5 apparmor file gets removed?
[20:41] <asac> otherwise it feels like clutter
[20:42] <asac> jdstrand: yes. if its modified, keep it renamed
[20:42] <asac> likt .conf-old
[20:42] <asac> like
[20:42] <jdstrand> asac: from a clutter PoV we could, but from an apparmor PoV there is no need
[20:42] <jdstrand> (for 3.5)
[20:42] <asac> jdstrand: yes. i would think just startup time
[20:42] <asac> parsing a not needed profile
[20:43] <jdstrand> in 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] <asac> jdstrand: yes, but remember that we will also push that package to karmic eventually
[20:43] <asac> ah
[20:43] <asac> you say its also cached in karmic?
[20:44] <asac> and jaunty doesnt have all this yes... ok
[20:44] <jdstrand> still, it would be nice to not have it if firefox-3.5 is no longer available
[20:44] <jdstrand> jaunty doesn't have a 3.5 profile, no
[20:44] <asac> but 3.0? ;)
[20:44] <asac> j.k. i think we never added it there
[20:44] <jdstrand> or 3.0 :)
[20:45] <jdstrand> right, just in karmic
[20:45]  * jdstrand knew you were kidding :)
[20:45] <asac> hehe
[20:45] <asac> ok i think thats all good. so lets fix it on .head
[20:45] <asac> then dailies get fixed automatically
[20:45] <asac> and lucid gets properly fixed on next upload
[20:46] <asac> will probably happen not that far in future
[20:46] <jdstrand> asac: right
[20:46] <jdstrand> asac: so you'll pull .head into the lucid branch?
[20:46] <jdstrand> asac: (whenever you are ready)
[20:49] <asac> jdstrand: we dont have a lucid branch
[20:49] <asac> akak .head is the lucid branch
[20:50] <asac> jdstrand: you can just add a new changelog with UNRELEASED (if there isnt one) on top
[20:50] <asac> and there you go
[20:50] <asac> i think i already started next revision
[20:51] <jdstrand> asac: that is what I was planning-- you mentioning .head made me think there might be something somewhere else :)
[20:51] <jdstrand> asac: you did start the next revision
[20:53] <jdstrand> asac: 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 archive
[20:53] <jdstrand> asac: we can do something with it when firefox-3.5 is gone unless you have another idea
[20:54] <micahg> asac: if firefox-3.5 even installable in the dailies anymore
[20:54] <micahg> jdstrand: archive branches are separate for firefox-3.5
[20:55]  * jdstrand nods
[20:55] <micahg> except for lucid, which should be removed from archive (I think)
[20:56] <jdstrand> if firefox-3.5 is gone from the dailies, then we should technically be ok
[20:58] <micahg> asac: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/38314073/upload_1463388_log.txt
[20:58] <micahg> we either need to move ff35 to a firefox-old daily ppa or drop it
[20:59] <jdstrand> btw, firefox-3.6 in the dailies hasn't built since 20100117 afaict
[20:59] <jdstrand> (just looking at versions available via apt)
[20:59] <jdstrand> that was on karmic iirc
[21:00] <jdstrand> http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa/ubuntu/pool/main/f/firefox-3.6/
[21:00] <micahg> jdstrand:  3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~karmic
[21:00] <micahg> jdstrand: wrong source
[21:01] <micahg> firefox-3.6 is firefox now
[21:01] <jdstrand> ah, of course
[21:01] <jdstrand> micahg: thanks
[21:29] <azteech> anyone know if there is a ubuntu-branded version out for firefox 3.5/3.6, 64-bit 9.04?
[21:29] <azteech> now there is one out for 9.10 .. but am running 9.04
[21:29] <micahg> azteech: Ubuntu branded?
[21:30] <azteech> yep ..
[21:30] <micahg> azteech: firefox 3.6 available in PPA per title of channel
[21:30] <micahg> azteech: we have Firefox and Abrowser
[21:30] <azteech> tried that - but all I get down is the 3.0 version ...
[21:30] <micahg> There is no "ubuntu" branding
[21:30] <micahg> 3.0?
[21:31] <azteech> yep ...
[21:31] <micahg> how
[21:31] <micahg> how are you installing?
[21:31] <azteech> and 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] <micahg> azteech: there is no more firefox-3.6
[21:32] <micahg> it's firefox now
[21:32] <azteech> sudo apt-get install firefox
[21:32] <micahg> azteech: what does sudo apt-get dist-upgrade show?
[21:33] <ccheney> if he still sees a firefox-3.6 that is probably part of his problem, he must have some other ppa in his sources.list
[21:33] <azteech> Reading package lists... Done
[21:33] <azteech> Building dependency tree
[21:33] <azteech> Reading state information... Done
[21:33] <azteech> Calculating upgrade... Done
[21:33] <azteech> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
[21:33] <azteech> stevan@linuxmystique:~$
[21:34] <micahg> azteech: apt-cache policy firefox
[21:34] <azteech> that is what I get with dist-upgrade
[21:35] <azteech> firefox:
[21:35] <azteech>   Installed: 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty
[21:35] <azteech>   Candidate: 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty
[21:35] <azteech>   Version table:
[21:35] <azteech>  *** 3.6.1~hg20100122r33535+nobinonly-0ubuntu2~umd3~jaunty 0
[21:35] <azteech>         500 http://ppa.launchpad.net jaunty/main Packages
[21:35] <azteech>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
[21:35] <azteech>      3.0.17+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.04.1 0
[21:35] <azteech>         500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-updates/main Packages
[21:35] <micahg> azteech: try pastebin next time
[21:35] <azteech>         500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty-security/main Packages
[21:35] <azteech>      3.0.8+nobinonly-0ubuntu3 0
[21:35] <azteech>         500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages
[21:35] <azteech> when I look at the about info, for the version that downloaded it says it is a pre-release version ...
[21:36] <micahg> azteech: you don't have the firefox-stable ppa
[21:36] <azteech> okay ..
[21:36] <azteech> sorry ..
[21:36] <azteech> don't usually send that much, so forget about pastebin ..
[21:36] <azteech> okay, so then I need to load the firefox-stable ppa into sources?
[21:37] <micahg> azteech: yes
[21:37]  * micahg forgot the command in title won't work on jaunty
[21:37] <micahg> azteech: https://edge.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable
[21:38] <azteech> micahg - okay, thanks, will load that in and see if that helps then. tks again :)
[21:39] <micahg> azteech: come back if you need more help
[21:39] <azteech> I will, thanks again ..
[21:50] <ccheney> asac: 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 now
[21:51] <ccheney> s/source/same
[21:56] <BUGabundo> bRoas o/
[22:02] <asac> ccheney: where is the current patch?
[22:03] <micahg> asac: branding for ff seems to be in universe in the lucid package
[22:19] <ccheney> asac: haven't regenerated it today yet
[22:19] <ccheney> asac: i'll stick it up on my chinstrap incoming in a minute
[22:21] <ccheney> asac: ok its there now
[22:23] <ccheney> apparently its not the first collision i have had its just the first that caused a miscompile
[22:25] <ccheney> well not really miscompile, it probably already had that issue, first to fail to compile entirely is more accurate
[22:27] <asac> k
[22:29]  * ccheney is glad he did a partial cleanup of the giant source file before, makes it much easier to split it up
[22:30] <fta> asac, any news about the review?
[22:35] <azteech> micahg : 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] <BUGabundo> fta: Ch is snapping agin
[22:35] <BUGabundo> :(
[22:36] <micahg> azteech: java console?
[22:36] <azteech> yep ..
[22:36] <fta> BUGabundo, doing what?
[22:36] <azteech> and, suspecting jre as well
[22:36] <micahg> azteech: uninstall it, it stopped working in 3.5 iirc
[22:36] <BUGabundo> fta: opening pages
[22:36] <BUGabundo> I'm seeing it in karmic
[22:36]  * micahg forgot the workaround
[22:36] <BUGabundo> not lucid
[22:36] <azteech> okay. what do I use in lieu of?
[22:36] <BUGabundo> strangely enough
[22:37] <BUGabundo> oh and firefox 3.7 in karmic lost its icon :(
[22:38] <fta> *sigh*
[22:39] <BUGabundo> I'm upgrading my laptop now
[22:39] <BUGabundo> lets see what happens
[22:39] <BUGabundo> will restart Ch and try to snap it
[22:40] <azteech> micahg: 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] <micahg> azteech: see if this has any answers: https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using+the+Java+plugin+with+Firefox
[22:41] <micahg> yep
[22:41] <azteech> thaks, reading it now. Appreciate the help.
[22:41] <azteech> s/thaks/thanks
[23:10] <azteech> anyone know if java version 6 update 10, or later is in the repositories?
[23:11] <micahg> azteech: for jaunty 16 is in updates
[23:11] <azteech> okay, thanks.
[23:42] <asac> ccheney: http://paste.ubuntu.com/362935/
[23:43] <asac> is that the error you are expecting?
[23:43] <asac> or did i grab the wrong patch?