| ddecator | i'm guessing the ubuntuzilla repo isn't officially supported by the mozilla team? | 01:55 |
|---|---|---|
| micahg | ddecator: no | 02:01 |
| micahg | ddecator: it's not a repo AFAIK | 02:01 |
| micahg | oh, I guess it is | 02:02 |
| ddecator | micahg, 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 connection | 02:02 |
| micahg | ddecator: nm, it is, but we don't support it | 02:02 |
| ddecator | micahg, 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 |
| micahg | yes, use the note about official software | 02:04 |
| ddecator | good deal | 02:04 |
| ddecator | one more ? | 02:04 |
| ddecator | micahg, is the latest update for ff 3.6 going to be pushed to the -stable ppa for karmic? | 02:05 |
| micahg | ddecator: yes | 02:07 |
| micahg | oh, the cookie accept thingy? | 02:08 |
| ddecator | micahg, yup | 02:08 |
| micahg | k, I'll push now | 02:09 |
| ddecator | micahg, thanks =) | 02:09 |
| micahg | ddecator: done | 02:13 |
| ddecator | micahg, thanks, now i can close those two reports | 02:14 |
| BUGabundo_remote | m0rn|ng | 08:45 |
| lantizia | Hey 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 available | 12:01 |
| lantizia | Any chance of a thunderbird-stable PPA so I can stop using Ubuntuzill altogether? | 12:02 |
| lantizia | Or someone else I can get the latest stable (and TB branded) packages Thunderbird? | 12:02 |
| lantizia | *packaged | 12:02 |
| BUGabundo_remote | why branded? | 12:04 |
| lantizia | it helps me sleep at night | 12:04 |
| mahfouz | fx 3.7 from daily build not working atm | 13:10 |
| mahfouz | Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre. | 13:10 |
| mahfouz | strange error message :) | 13:10 |
| asac | mahfouz: guess xulrunner didnt get build and hence you dont have a xulrunner-1.9.3 that is appropriate | 13:10 |
| mahfouz | i have 1.9.3 installed | 13:11 |
| mahfouz | 1.9.3~a3~hg20100301r38798+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1 | 13:12 |
| asac | sure ... my guess is just that its too old | 13:12 |
| asac | hmm | 13:13 |
| asac | seems not ;) | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | just installed from daily build | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | I upgraded to lucid 2 days ago | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | today installed fx 3.7 and then this | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | could never start 3.7 | 13:13 |
| asac | mahfouz: what is firefox-3.7 package version? | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | 3.6 works fine from daily build | 13:13 |
| mahfouz | 3.7~a2~hg20100227r38786+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1 | 13:13 |
| asac | mahfouz: yeah. so that is outdated it seems | 13:14 |
| asac | most likely it fails to build atm | 13:14 |
| mahfouz | ah ok | 13:14 |
| mahfouz | I'll try later | 13:14 |
| asac | yeah seems to https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa | 13:14 |
| asac | Applying patch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch | 13:15 |
| asac | patching file browser/installer/package-manifest.in | 13:15 |
| asac | Hunk #1 FAILED at 66. | 13:15 |
| asac | 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file browser/installer/package-manifest.in | 13:15 |
| asac | Patch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch does not apply (enforce with -f) | 13:15 |
| asac | so yeah. someone needs to rebase that patch | 13:15 |
| asac | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 build1 - tagging started | 13:54 |
| asac | fta: dont disable nmt please just because folks complain ... | 14:30 |
| asac | ok scratch that | 14:30 |
| BUGabundo_remote | asac: LLOOOOOOOLL | 14:34 |
| BUGabundo_remote | make up your mind! | 14:34 |
| BUGabundo_remote | :p | 14:34 |
| === debfx_ is now known as debfx | ||
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| fta | asac, ??? | 17:13 |
| BUGabundo_remote | fta: I didn't get him either | 17:14 |
| asac | fta: all fine ... got confused by pmsgs i got | 17:21 |
| === dpm is now known as dpm-afk | ||
| LLStarks | micahg, 3.7 is broken. | 18:52 |
| LLStarks | Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre. | 18:52 |
| micahg | LLStarks: k | 18:53 |
| micahg | LLStarks: I have to fix 3.7 anyways | 18:53 |
| LLStarks | hah | 18:53 |
| micahg | LLStarks: which version are you running | 18:53 |
| micahg | LLStarks: daily broke last night | 18:53 |
| LLStarks | that one. | 18:53 |
| ddecator | anyone know what a "compatible GRE" is for firefox? the version numbers seem to match up with xulrunner... | 19:30 |
| micahg | ddecator: yeah, it got tagged last night...that seems to happen when we get in between versions | 19:31 |
| ddecator | micahg, 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 3.7 | 19:32 |
| LLStarks | and 3.6 still lacks cairo. | 19:32 |
| micahg | ddecator: yeah, xulrunner1.9.3 is ahead of ff3.7 which causes the issue, maybe I'll add a check on that | 19:33 |
| ddecator | micahg, ah, i see. thanks | 19:33 |
| micahg | ddecator: it'll be fixed tonight | 19:34 |
| micahg | at least the build...idk about the check | 19:35 |
| ddecator | micahg, 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 haha | 19:35 |
| micahg | ddecator: if you have the old xulrunner-1.9.3~a2 package in your apt-cache you could downgrade | 19:36 |
| ddecator | i just cleared my cache yesterday, but i can check... | 19:36 |
| ddecator | nope, i only have an a3 package now...oh well | 19:37 |
| micahg | ddecator: amd64 or i386? | 19:38 |
| ddecator | amd64 | 19:38 |
| micahg | ddecator: karmic or lucid? | 19:39 |
| ddecator | karmic...do you have a link to the a2 package or something? | 19:39 |
| micahg | ddecator: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/1534930 | 19:40 |
| ddecator | micahg, perfect! now i can get to work on getting back to some of my bugmail... | 19:40 |
| maxb | What exactly does the firefox-gnome-support package do? It appears to contain no files barring the changelog. | 19:41 |
| micahg | maxb: which release? | 19:41 |
| micahg | or rather, which source? | 19:42 |
| maxb | I'm looking at current lucid at the moment | 19:42 |
| micahg | hmm | 19:42 |
| micahg | that doesn't seem right... | 19:42 |
| micahg | maxb, to install the dependencies | 19:43 |
| micahg | package is empty | 19:43 |
| maxb | ah, I see | 19:43 |
| micahg | maxb: it's actually in the changelog for 3.6 initial release | 19:44 |
| maxb | oops :-) Sorry | 19:44 |
| micahg | maxb: np, just pointing you there if you wanted to know more :) | 19:44 |
| edakiri | is 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 EF4186FE247510BE | 20:28 |
| micahg | edakiri: PPA page has instructions | 20:29 |
| edakiri | I do have a key for mozilla team, but it is CE49EC21 | 20:29 |
| lantizia | Lo, 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 |
| micahg | lantizia: yes | 20:29 |
| edakiri | I followed the instructions and it installed the aformentioned key but not the missing key. | 20:29 |
| micahg | edakiri: which PPA? | 20:29 |
| lantizia | micahg, wow quick answer... what do I need to know? | 20:29 |
| micahg | lantizia: idk, I have to find out when I can publish it :) | 20:30 |
| edakiri | Perhaps the daily PPA? I have both mozilla team PPAs. | 20:30 |
| micahg | edakiri: daily PPA is different | 20:30 |
| lantizia | micahg, so you have a TB 3.0.2 amd64 build (thunderbird branded) in .deb format? | 20:30 |
| micahg | lantizia: not yet, soon | 20:30 |
| lantizia | so a thunderbird-stable PPA is to be expected then? | 20:30 |
| micahg | lantizia: yes, probably before Lucid is released, but don't quote m | 20:31 |
| micahg | *me | 20:31 |
| lantizia | micahg, 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 |
| micahg | lantizia: I suppose, Lucid has 64 bit 3.0.1 | 20:33 |
| lantizia | Ah... how handy, I'll steal that then :) | 20:34 |
| lantizia | it'll update when the thunderbird-stable PPA goes live anyway | 20:34 |
| lantizia | good idea! | 20:34 |
| micahg | edakiri: check the key on the mozilla daily PPA homepage | 20:35 |
| lantizia | micahg, 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 |
| lantizia | i.e. it's something you can rely on | 20:36 |
| micahg | lantizia: we'll try :) | 20:36 |
| micahg | yes, that's the goal | 20:36 |
| lantizia | ok just checking :) | 20:36 |
| micahg | we hope to have a relatively latest stable in all stable releases soon | 20:37 |
| lantizia | cuz obviously mozilla daily builds have existed for a while now | 20:37 |
| micahg | but this should be ahead of that as there is more QA required for archive entry | 20:37 |
| lantizia | will the versions in the PPA be affected by canonical decisions? (like the Yahoo! search change) | 20:38 |
| micahg | lantizia: already should be :) | 20:38 |
| lantizia | right, so in effect you're presenting the PPA versions to Mozilla for approval - and then re-using those packages in the distros | 20:38 |
| micahg | lantizia: no | 20:39 |
| lantizia | rather than waiting for the next distro to ask for approval | 20:39 |
| micahg | we get approval when needed/as necessary | 20:39 |
| lantizia | do this must have more than doubled the need to speak with Mozilla about approving your branded versions? | 20:39 |
| lantizia | *so | 20:39 |
| micahg | PPA is a way for people to get the latest stable a little faster than archive | 20:39 |
| micahg | they're the exact same packages | 20:40 |
| lantizia | right so what I said in the begining was right :) | 20:40 |
| lantizia | make them for PPA use as and when Mozilla releases a new version - reuse those packages in the main repository | 20:40 |
| micahg | lantizia: no, the mozilla-security PPA is for that purpose | 20:41 |
| lantizia | lol confusion | 20:41 |
| * micahg is starting to get confused... | 20:42 | |
| lantizia | my understanding was each time you release a binary build of firefox you send a copy to mozilla first to get their blessing | 20:42 |
| micahg | lantizia: no | 20:43 |
| lantizia | so having this PPA that gives out branded versions... must more than double that contact with mozilla | 20:43 |
| lantizia | ok | 20:43 |
| lantizia | so if you don't need approval... then why bother having the daily builds unbranded? | 20:44 |
| micahg | lantizia: they approve the conventions we use in teh pacakges, dailies are unbranded | 20:45 |
| micahg | dailies upstream are unbranded | 20:45 |
| lantizia | right so the conventions for making the stable PPA versions and those in the main repository are the same - thus they can be branded | 20:45 |
| micahg | lantizia: right | 20:46 |
| lantizia | conventions used for the dailies are not always the same, thus safer to be unbranded | 20:46 |
| micahg | lantizia: dailies aren't branded by mozilla AFAIK | 20:46 |
| lantizia | they arn't | 20:46 |
| lantizia | micahg, 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 |
| lantizia | or thunderbird | 20:49 |
| micahg | lantizia: no | 20:51 |
| lantizia | because I'm not canonical? | 20:51 |
| micahg | not in a PPA | 20:51 |
| micahg | the branding is licensed | 20:51 |
| lantizia | right, with a fee? | 20:51 |
| micahg | no, but you need permission to use it AFAIK | 20:52 |
| lantizia | right | 20:52 |
| lantizia | well this lucid thunderbird seems to depend on libasound2 (>> 1.0.22) for some stupid reason | 20:53 |
| lantizia | probably not needed, but having .deb installed manually is sticky enough - resolving all it's dependencies could be a headache | 20:53 |
| micahg | lantizia: xulrunner-1.9.1 requires it | 20:54 |
| lantizia | I already have xultunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.8+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10 | 20:55 |
| micahg | lantizia: yes, but tb has it's own copy | 20:55 |
| === dpm-afk is now known as dpm | ||
| micahg | s/it's/its | 20:55 |
| micahg | lantizia: i don't think there's a strict version requirement, so if you have libasound2, you can force it | 20:56 |
| ccheney | asac: it seems that the GtkIconInfo stuff is needed by GtkEntry which is used by several parts of epiphany | 21:20 |
| ccheney | lib/widgets/ephy-search-entry.c lib/widgets/ephy-location-entry.c src/ephy-window.c | 21:21 |
| ccheney | asac: i guess if i can get rid of the gtk_entry_* calls i could bypass needing that | 21:22 |
| * 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_entry | 21:22 | |
| ccheney | ugh rewritten | 21:30 |
| ccheney | ephy-location-entry.c is particularly fun, heh | 21:49 |
| ccheney | whole thing appears to be rewritten to use new api | 21:49 |
| ccheney | epiphany api is slightly different for that part but not too bad it seems | 22:10 |
| ccheney | ugh it is worse than i thought inside though :- | 22:11 |
| ccheney | \ | 22:11 |
| ccheney | apparently this icon stuff in gtk came from epiphany or looks like it did | 22:12 |
| ccheney | hmm 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 epiphany | 22:15 |
| ccheney | that might be enough to get away from the gtk_entry part | 22:16 |
| ccheney | grr it looks like some of what they changed was to just make diff's harder | 22:24 |
| ccheney | they reordered the structs in a header file for apparently no reason at all | 22:24 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!