[01:55] <ddecator> i'm guessing the ubuntuzilla repo isn't officially supported by the mozilla team?
[02:01] <micahg> ddecator: no
[02:01] <micahg> ddecator: it's not a repo AFAIK
[02:02] <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
[02:03] <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?
[02:04] <micahg> yes, use the note about official software
[02:04] <ddecator> good deal
[02:04] <ddecator> one more ?
[02:05] <ddecator> micahg, is the latest update for ff 3.6 going to be pushed to the -stable ppa for karmic?
[02:07] <micahg> ddecator: yes
[02:08] <micahg> oh, the cookie accept thingy?
[02:08] <ddecator> micahg, yup
[02:09] <micahg> k, I'll push now
[02:09] <ddecator> micahg, thanks =)
[02:13] <micahg> ddecator: done
[02:14] <ddecator> micahg, thanks, now i can close those two reports
[08:45] <BUGabundo_remote> m0rn|ng
[12:01] <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
[12:02] <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
[12:04] <BUGabundo_remote> why branded?
[12:04] <lantizia> it helps me sleep at night
[13:10] <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
[13:11] <mahfouz> i have 1.9.3 installed
[13:12] <mahfouz> 1.9.3~a3~hg20100301r38798+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1
[13:12] <asac> sure ... my guess is just that its too old
[13:13] <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
[13:14] <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
[13:15] <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
[13:54] <asac> Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 build1 - tagging started
[14:30] <asac> fta: dont disable nmt please just because folks complain ...
[14:30] <asac> ok scratch that
[14:34] <BUGabundo_remote> asac: LLOOOOOOOLL
[14:34] <BUGabundo_remote> make up your mind!
[14:34] <BUGabundo_remote> :p
[17:13] <fta> asac, ???
[17:14] <BUGabundo_remote> fta: I didn't get him either
[17:21] <asac> fta: all fine ... got confused by pmsgs i got
[18:52] <LLStarks> micahg, 3.7 is broken.
[18:52] <LLStarks> Could not find compatible GRE between version 1.9.3a2pre and 1.9.3a2pre.
[18:53] <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.
[19:30] <ddecator> anyone know what a "compatible GRE" is for firefox? the version numbers seem to match up with xulrunner...
[19:31] <micahg> ddecator: yeah, it got tagged last night...that seems to happen when we get in between versions
[19:32] <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.
[19:33] <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
[19:34] <micahg> ddecator: it'll be fixed tonight
[19:35] <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
[19:36] <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...
[19:37] <ddecator> nope, i only have an a3 package now...oh well
[19:38] <micahg> ddecator: amd64 or i386?
[19:38] <ddecator> amd64
[19:39] <micahg> ddecator: karmic or lucid?
[19:39] <ddecator> karmic...do you have a link to the a2 package or something?
[19:40] <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...
[19:41] <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?
[19:42] <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...
[19:43] <micahg> maxb, to install the dependencies
[19:43] <micahg> package is empty
[19:43] <maxb> ah, I see
[19:44] <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 :)
[20:28] <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
[20:29] <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?
[20:30] <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?
[20:31] <micahg> lantizia: yes, probably before Lucid is released, but don't quote m
[20:31] <micahg> *me
[20:33] <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
[20:34] <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!
[20:35] <micahg> edakiri: check the key on the mozilla daily PPA homepage
[20:36] <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 :)
[20:37] <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
[20:38] <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
[20:39] <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
[20:40] <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
[20:41] <micahg> lantizia: no, the mozilla-security PPA is for that purpose
[20:41] <lantizia> lol confusion
[20:42]  * 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
[20:43] <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
[20:44] <lantizia> so if you don't need approval... then why bother having the daily builds unbranded?
[20:45] <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
[20:46] <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
[20:49] <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
[20:51] <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?
[20:52] <micahg> no, but you need permission to use it AFAIK
[20:52] <lantizia> right
[20:53] <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
[20:54] <micahg> lantizia: xulrunner-1.9.1 requires it
[20:55] <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] <micahg> s/it's/its
[20:56] <micahg> lantizia: i don't think there's a strict version requirement, so if you have libasound2, you can force it
[21:20] <ccheney> asac: it seems that the GtkIconInfo stuff is needed by GtkEntry which is used by several parts of epiphany
[21:21] <ccheney> lib/widgets/ephy-search-entry.c lib/widgets/ephy-location-entry.c src/ephy-window.c
[21:22] <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
[21:30] <ccheney> ugh rewritten
[21:49] <ccheney> ephy-location-entry.c is particularly fun, heh
[21:49] <ccheney> whole thing appears to be rewritten to use new api
[22:10] <ccheney> epiphany api is slightly different for that part but not too bad it seems
[22:11] <ccheney> ugh it is worse than i thought inside though :-
[22:11] <ccheney> \
[22:12] <ccheney> apparently this icon stuff in gtk came from epiphany or looks like it did
[22:15] <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
[22:16] <ccheney> that might be enough to get away from the gtk_entry part
[22:24] <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