ddecatori'm guessing the ubuntuzilla repo isn't officially supported by the mozilla team?01:55
micahgddecator: no02:01
micahgddecator: it's not a repo AFAIK02:01
micahgoh, I guess it is02:02
ddecatormicahg, that's how a bug reporter referred to it...i noticed that it has its on bts on sourceforge, so i figured there wasn't a real connection02:02
micahgddecator: nm, it is, but we don't support it02:02
ddecatormicahg, so i'm guessing a bug report for a version of firefox from that repo is invalid and should be reported on the ubuntuzilla bts instead, or the person should use the official -stable ppa, yes?02:03
micahgyes, use the note about official software02:04
ddecatorgood deal02:04
ddecatorone more ?02:04
ddecatormicahg, is the latest update for ff 3.6 going to be pushed to the -stable ppa for karmic?02:05
micahgddecator: yes02:07
micahgoh, the cookie accept thingy?02:08
ddecatormicahg, yup02:08
micahgk, I'll push now02:09
ddecatormicahg, thanks =)02:09
micahgddecator: done02:13
ddecatormicahg, thanks, now i can close those two reports02:14
lantiziaHey I normally use Ubuntuzilla to get the latest FX and TB, but I stopped and swapped to the firefox-stable PPA especially since an amd64 version is available12:01
lantiziaAny chance of a thunderbird-stable PPA so I can stop using Ubuntuzill altogether?12:02
lantiziaOr someone else I can get the latest stable (and TB branded) packages Thunderbird?12:02
BUGabundo_remotewhy branded?12:04
lantiziait helps me sleep at night12:04
mahfouzfx 3.7 from daily build not working atm13:10
mahfouzCould not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre.13:10
mahfouzstrange error message :)13:10
asacmahfouz: guess xulrunner didnt get build and hence you dont have a xulrunner-1.9.3 that is appropriate13:10
mahfouzi have 1.9.3 installed13:11
asacsure ... my guess is just that its too old13:12
asacseems not ;)13:13
mahfouzjust installed from daily build13:13
mahfouzI upgraded to lucid 2 days ago13:13
mahfouztoday installed fx 3.7 and then this13:13
mahfouzcould never start 3.713:13
asacmahfouz: what is firefox-3.7 package version?13:13
mahfouz3.6 works fine from daily build13:13
asacmahfouz: yeah. so that is outdated it seems13:14
asacmost likely it fails to build atm13:14
mahfouzah ok13:14
mahfouzI'll try later13:14
asacyeah seems to https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa13:14
asacApplying patch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch13:15
asacpatching file browser/installer/package-manifest.in13:15
asacHunk #1 FAILED at 66.13:15
asac1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file browser/installer/package-manifest.in13:15
asacPatch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch does not apply (enforce with -f)13:15
asacso yeah. someone needs to rebase that patch13:15
asacThunderbird build1 - tagging started13:54
asacfta: dont disable nmt please just because folks complain ...14:30
asacok scratch that14:30
BUGabundo_remoteasac: LLOOOOOOOLL14:34
BUGabundo_remotemake up your mind!14:34
=== debfx_ is now known as debfx
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
ftaasac, ???17:13
BUGabundo_remotefta: I didn't get him either17:14
asacfta: all fine ... got confused by pmsgs i got17:21
=== dpm is now known as dpm-afk
LLStarksmicahg, 3.7 is broken.18:52
LLStarksCould not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre.18:52
micahgLLStarks: k18:53
micahgLLStarks: I have to fix 3.7 anyways18:53
micahgLLStarks: which version are you running18:53
micahgLLStarks: daily broke last night18:53
LLStarksthat one.18:53
ddecatoranyone know what a "compatible GRE" is for firefox? the version numbers seem to match up with xulrunner...19:30
micahgddecator: yeah, it got tagged last night...that seems to happen when we get in between versions19:31
ddecatormicahg, i didn't see anything on lp about it...but it should get fixed with an update soon? 3.6.2 still works for me, just not 3.719:32
LLStarksand 3.6 still lacks cairo.19:32
micahgddecator: yeah, xulrunner1.9.3 is ahead of ff3.7 which causes the issue, maybe I'll add a check on that19:33
ddecatormicahg, ah, i see. thanks19:33
micahgddecator: it'll be fixed tonight19:34
micahgat least the build...idk about the check19:35
ddecatormicahg, good deal. i didn't realize how different i had 3.6.2 setup compared to my 3.7, so it'll be nice if i don't have to go through and reconfig my 3.6.2 install haha19:35
micahgddecator: if you have the old xulrunner-1.9.3~a2 package in your apt-cache you could downgrade19:36
ddecatori just cleared my cache yesterday, but i can check...19:36
ddecatornope, i only have an a3 package now...oh well19:37
micahgddecator: amd64 or i386?19:38
micahgddecator: karmic or lucid?19:39
ddecatorkarmic...do you have a link to the a2 package or something?19:39
micahgddecator: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/153493019:40
ddecatormicahg, perfect! now i can get to work on getting back to some of my bugmail...19:40
maxbWhat exactly does the firefox-gnome-support package do? It appears to contain no files barring the changelog.19:41
micahgmaxb: which release?19:41
micahgor rather, which source?19:42
maxbI'm looking at current lucid at the moment19:42
micahgthat doesn't seem right...19:42
micahgmaxb, to install the dependencies19:43
micahgpackage is empty19:43
maxbah, I see19:43
micahgmaxb: it's actually in the changelog for 3.6 initial release19:44
maxboops :-) Sorry19:44
micahgmaxb: np, just pointing you there if you wanted to know more :)19:44
edakiriis I'm missing a key for apt, it seems to be for mozilla team.  How do I get it? W: GPG error: http://ppa.launchpad.net karmic Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EF4186FE247510BE20:28
micahgedakiri: PPA page has instructions20:29
edakiriI do have a key for mozilla team, but it is CE49EC2120:29
lantiziaLo, I normally use Ubuntuzilla for the latest FX and TB, but now I use the firefox-stable PPA especially since it's 64-bit too... any change of a thunderbird-stable PPA?  Or someone else I can get the latest stable (and mozilla branded) packaged Thunderbird 3?20:29
micahglantizia: yes20:29
edakiriI followed the instructions and it installed the aformentioned key but not the missing key.20:29
micahgedakiri: which PPA?20:29
lantiziamicahg, wow quick answer... what do I need to know?20:29
micahglantizia: idk, I have to find out when I can publish it :)20:30
edakiriPerhaps the daily PPA?  I have both mozilla team PPAs.20:30
micahgedakiri: daily PPA is different20:30
lantiziamicahg, so you have a TB 3.0.2 amd64 build (thunderbird branded) in .deb format?20:30
micahglantizia: not yet, soon20:30
lantiziaso a thunderbird-stable PPA is to be expected then?20:30
micahglantizia: yes, probably before Lucid is released, but don't quote m20:31
lantiziamicahg, so for now (if I don't want it shredder branded) my only choice is the 32-bit ubuntuzilla or .tar.gz versions?20:33
micahglantizia: I suppose, Lucid has 64 bit 3.0.120:33
lantiziaAh... how handy, I'll steal that then :)20:34
lantiziait'll update when the thunderbird-stable PPA goes live anyway20:34
lantiziagood idea!20:34
micahgedakiri: check the key on the mozilla daily PPA homepage20:35
lantiziamicahg, I take it the "firefox-stable" PPA doesn't just exist to shut up Jaunty/Karmic users who want 3.6... it'll be a permanent offering that will always have the up to date (and mozilla branded) version?20:36
lantiziai.e. it's something you can rely on20:36
micahglantizia: we'll try :)20:36
micahgyes, that's the goal20:36
lantiziaok just checking :)20:36
micahgwe hope to have a relatively latest stable in all stable releases soon20:37
lantiziacuz obviously mozilla daily builds have existed for a while now20:37
micahgbut this should be ahead of that as there is more QA required for archive entry20:37
lantiziawill the versions in the PPA be affected by canonical decisions? (like the Yahoo! search change)20:38
micahglantizia: already should be :)20:38
lantiziaright, so in effect you're presenting the PPA versions to Mozilla for approval - and then re-using those packages in the distros20:38
micahglantizia: no20:39
lantiziarather than waiting for the next distro to ask for approval20:39
micahgwe get approval when needed/as necessary20:39
lantiziado this must have more than doubled the need to speak with Mozilla about approving your branded versions?20:39
micahgPPA is a way for people to get the latest stable a little faster than archive20:39
micahgthey're the exact same packages20:40
lantiziaright so what I said in the begining was right :)20:40
lantiziamake them for PPA use as and when Mozilla releases a new version - reuse those packages in the main repository20:40
micahglantizia: no, the mozilla-security PPA is for that purpose20:41
lantizialol confusion20:41
* micahg is starting to get confused...20:42
lantiziamy understanding was each time you release a binary build of firefox you send a copy to mozilla first to get their blessing20:42
micahglantizia: no20:43
lantiziaso having this PPA that gives out branded versions... must more than double that contact with mozilla20:43
lantiziaso if you don't need approval... then why bother having the daily builds unbranded?20:44
micahglantizia: they approve the conventions we use in teh pacakges, dailies are unbranded20:45
micahgdailies upstream are unbranded20:45
lantiziaright so the conventions for making the stable PPA versions and those in the main repository are the same - thus they can be branded20:45
micahglantizia: right20:46
lantiziaconventions used for the dailies are not always the same, thus safer to be unbranded20:46
micahglantizia: dailies aren't branded by mozilla AFAIK20:46
lantiziathey arn't20:46
lantiziamicahg, ok so say if I use whatever "conventions" that mozilla have blessed canonical to use ... can I build myself a 64bit .deb version?20:49
lantiziaor thunderbird20:49
micahglantizia: no20:51
lantiziabecause I'm not canonical?20:51
micahgnot in a PPA20:51
micahgthe branding is licensed20:51
lantiziaright, with a fee?20:51
micahgno, but you need permission to use it AFAIK20:52
lantiziawell this lucid thunderbird seems to depend on libasound2 (>> 1.0.22) for some stupid reason20:53
lantiziaprobably not needed, but having .deb installed manually is sticky enough - resolving all it's dependencies could be a headache20:53
micahglantizia: xulrunner-1.9.1 requires it20:54
lantiziaI already have xultunner-1.9.1
micahglantizia: yes, but tb has it's own copy20:55
=== dpm-afk is now known as dpm
micahglantizia: i don't think there's a strict version requirement, so if you have libasound2, you can force it20:56
ccheneyasac: it seems that the GtkIconInfo stuff is needed by GtkEntry which is used by several parts of epiphany21:20
ccheneylib/widgets/ephy-search-entry.c lib/widgets/ephy-location-entry.c src/ephy-window.c21:21
ccheneyasac: i guess if i can get rid of the gtk_entry_* calls i could bypass needing that21:22
* ccheney will see if he can compare what was done in old epiphany to see if it is possible to copy old code in place of then stuff using gtk_entry21:22
ccheneyugh rewritten21:30
ccheneyephy-location-entry.c is particularly fun, heh21:49
ccheneywhole thing appears to be rewritten to use new api21:49
ccheneyepiphany api is slightly different for that part but not too bad it seems22:10
ccheneyugh it is worse than i thought inside though :-22:11
ccheneyapparently this icon stuff in gtk came from epiphany or looks like it did22:12
ccheneyhmm so it seems i need to copy ephy-icon-entry from old version to new one, then copy those two other files over and fix them up to match the new api inside epiphany22:15
ccheneythat might be enough to get away from the gtk_entry part22:16
ccheneygrr it looks like some of what they changed was to just make diff's harder22:24
ccheneythey reordered the structs in a header file for apparently no reason at all22:24

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