[01:55] i'm guessing the ubuntuzilla repo isn't officially supported by the mozilla team? [02:01] ddecator: no [02:01] ddecator: it's not a repo AFAIK [02:02] oh, I guess it is [02:02] 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] ddecator: nm, it is, but we don't support it [02:03] 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? [02:04] yes, use the note about official software [02:04] good deal [02:04] one more ? [02:05] micahg, is the latest update for ff 3.6 going to be pushed to the -stable ppa for karmic? [02:07] ddecator: yes [02:08] oh, the cookie accept thingy? [02:08] micahg, yup [02:09] k, I'll push now [02:09] micahg, thanks =) [02:13] ddecator: done [02:14] micahg, thanks, now i can close those two reports [08:45] m0rn|ng [12:01] 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 [12:02] Any chance of a thunderbird-stable PPA so I can stop using Ubuntuzill altogether? [12:02] Or someone else I can get the latest stable (and TB branded) packages Thunderbird? [12:02] *packaged [12:04] why branded? [12:04] it helps me sleep at night [13:10] fx 3.7 from daily build not working atm [13:10] Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre. [13:10] strange error message :) [13:10] mahfouz: guess xulrunner didnt get build and hence you dont have a xulrunner-1.9.3 that is appropriate [13:11] i have 1.9.3 installed [13:12] 1.9.3~a3~hg20100301r38798+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1 [13:12] sure ... my guess is just that its too old [13:13] hmm [13:13] seems not ;) [13:13] just installed from daily build [13:13] I upgraded to lucid 2 days ago [13:13] today installed fx 3.7 and then this [13:13] could never start 3.7 [13:13] mahfouz: what is firefox-3.7 package version? [13:13] 3.6 works fine from daily build [13:13] 3.7~a2~hg20100227r38786+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1 [13:14] mahfouz: yeah. so that is outdated it seems [13:14] most likely it fails to build atm [13:14] ah ok [13:14] I'll try later [13:14] yeah seems to https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa [13:15] Applying patch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch [13:15] patching file browser/installer/package-manifest.in [13:15] Hunk #1 FAILED at 66. [13:15] 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file browser/installer/package-manifest.in [13:15] Patch bzXXX_moz_app_name_inconsistencies.patch does not apply (enforce with -f) [13:15] so yeah. someone needs to rebase that patch [13:54] Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 build1 - tagging started [14:30] fta: dont disable nmt please just because folks complain ... [14:30] ok scratch that [14:34] asac: LLOOOOOOOLL [14:34] make up your mind! [14:34] :p === debfx_ is now known as debfx === yofel_ is now known as yofel [17:13] asac, ??? [17:14] fta: I didn't get him either [17:21] fta: all fine ... got confused by pmsgs i got === dpm is now known as dpm-afk [18:52] micahg, 3.7 is broken. [18:52] Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre. [18:53] LLStarks: k [18:53] LLStarks: I have to fix 3.7 anyways [18:53] hah [18:53] LLStarks: which version are you running [18:53] LLStarks: daily broke last night [18:53] that one. [19:30] anyone know what a "compatible GRE" is for firefox? the version numbers seem to match up with xulrunner... [19:31] ddecator: yeah, it got tagged last night...that seems to happen when we get in between versions [19:32] 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] and 3.6 still lacks cairo. [19:33] ddecator: yeah, xulrunner1.9.3 is ahead of ff3.7 which causes the issue, maybe I'll add a check on that [19:33] micahg, ah, i see. thanks [19:34] ddecator: it'll be fixed tonight [19:35] at least the build...idk about the check [19:35] 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 [19:36] ddecator: if you have the old xulrunner-1.9.3~a2 package in your apt-cache you could downgrade [19:36] i just cleared my cache yesterday, but i can check... [19:37] nope, i only have an a3 package now...oh well [19:38] ddecator: amd64 or i386? [19:38] amd64 [19:39] ddecator: karmic or lucid? [19:39] karmic...do you have a link to the a2 package or something? [19:40] ddecator: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/1534930 [19:40] micahg, perfect! now i can get to work on getting back to some of my bugmail... [19:41] What exactly does the firefox-gnome-support package do? It appears to contain no files barring the changelog. [19:41] maxb: which release? [19:42] or rather, which source? [19:42] I'm looking at current lucid at the moment [19:42] hmm [19:42] that doesn't seem right... [19:43] maxb, to install the dependencies [19:43] package is empty [19:43] ah, I see [19:44] maxb: it's actually in the changelog for 3.6 initial release [19:44] oops :-) Sorry [19:44] maxb: np, just pointing you there if you wanted to know more :) [20:28] 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 [20:29] edakiri: PPA page has instructions [20:29] I do have a key for mozilla team, but it is CE49EC21 [20:29] 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] lantizia: yes [20:29] I followed the instructions and it installed the aformentioned key but not the missing key. [20:29] edakiri: which PPA? [20:29] micahg, wow quick answer... what do I need to know? [20:30] lantizia: idk, I have to find out when I can publish it :) [20:30] Perhaps the daily PPA? I have both mozilla team PPAs. [20:30] edakiri: daily PPA is different [20:30] micahg, so you have a TB 3.0.2 amd64 build (thunderbird branded) in .deb format? [20:30] lantizia: not yet, soon [20:30] so a thunderbird-stable PPA is to be expected then? [20:31] lantizia: yes, probably before Lucid is released, but don't quote m [20:31] *me [20:33] 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] lantizia: I suppose, Lucid has 64 bit 3.0.1 [20:34] Ah... how handy, I'll steal that then :) [20:34] it'll update when the thunderbird-stable PPA goes live anyway [20:34] good idea! [20:35] edakiri: check the key on the mozilla daily PPA homepage [20:36] 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] i.e. it's something you can rely on [20:36] lantizia: we'll try :) [20:36] yes, that's the goal [20:36] ok just checking :) [20:37] we hope to have a relatively latest stable in all stable releases soon [20:37] cuz obviously mozilla daily builds have existed for a while now [20:37] but this should be ahead of that as there is more QA required for archive entry [20:38] will the versions in the PPA be affected by canonical decisions? (like the Yahoo! search change) [20:38] lantizia: already should be :) [20:38] right, so in effect you're presenting the PPA versions to Mozilla for approval - and then re-using those packages in the distros [20:39] lantizia: no [20:39] rather than waiting for the next distro to ask for approval [20:39] we get approval when needed/as necessary [20:39] do this must have more than doubled the need to speak with Mozilla about approving your branded versions? [20:39] *so [20:39] PPA is a way for people to get the latest stable a little faster than archive [20:40] they're the exact same packages [20:40] right so what I said in the begining was right :) [20:40] make them for PPA use as and when Mozilla releases a new version - reuse those packages in the main repository [20:41] lantizia: no, the mozilla-security PPA is for that purpose [20:41] lol confusion [20:42] * micahg is starting to get confused... [20:42] my understanding was each time you release a binary build of firefox you send a copy to mozilla first to get their blessing [20:43] lantizia: no [20:43] so having this PPA that gives out branded versions... must more than double that contact with mozilla [20:43] ok [20:44] so if you don't need approval... then why bother having the daily builds unbranded? [20:45] lantizia: they approve the conventions we use in teh pacakges, dailies are unbranded [20:45] dailies upstream are unbranded [20:45] right so the conventions for making the stable PPA versions and those in the main repository are the same - thus they can be branded [20:46] lantizia: right [20:46] conventions used for the dailies are not always the same, thus safer to be unbranded [20:46] lantizia: dailies aren't branded by mozilla AFAIK [20:46] they arn't [20:49] 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] or thunderbird [20:51] lantizia: no [20:51] because I'm not canonical? [20:51] not in a PPA [20:51] the branding is licensed [20:51] right, with a fee? [20:52] no, but you need permission to use it AFAIK [20:52] right [20:53] well this lucid thunderbird seems to depend on libasound2 (>> 1.0.22) for some stupid reason [20:53] probably not needed, but having .deb installed manually is sticky enough - resolving all it's dependencies could be a headache [20:54] lantizia: xulrunner-1.9.1 requires it [20:55] I already have xultunner-1.9.1 1.9.1.8+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10 [20:55] lantizia: yes, but tb has it's own copy === dpm-afk is now known as dpm [20:55] s/it's/its [20:56] lantizia: i don't think there's a strict version requirement, so if you have libasound2, you can force it [21:20] asac: it seems that the GtkIconInfo stuff is needed by GtkEntry which is used by several parts of epiphany [21:21] lib/widgets/ephy-search-entry.c lib/widgets/ephy-location-entry.c src/ephy-window.c [21:22] 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 [21:30] ugh rewritten [21:49] ephy-location-entry.c is particularly fun, heh [21:49] whole thing appears to be rewritten to use new api [22:10] epiphany api is slightly different for that part but not too bad it seems [22:11] ugh it is worse than i thought inside though :- [22:11] \ [22:12] apparently this icon stuff in gtk came from epiphany or looks like it did [22:15] 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 [22:16] that might be enough to get away from the gtk_entry part [22:24] grr it looks like some of what they changed was to just make diff's harder [22:24] they reordered the structs in a header file for apparently no reason at all