[02:47] <nigelb> can someone give me an ack for a UIFe for pitivi before thu freeze? bug 314885
[02:47] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 314885 in pitivi "Don't show version number in titlebar" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/314885
[16:09] <nigelb> I'd really appreciate an ack for bug 314885 from someone from the release team
[16:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 314885 in pitivi "Don't show version number in titlebar" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/314885
[16:18] <nigelb> cjwatson, ping
[16:24] <cjwatson> nigelb: hi?
[16:24] <cjwatson> ... ok
[17:35] <nigelb> cjwatson, got some time to ack a UIfe?
[17:42] <lamont> slangasek: are we installable enough that it makes sense for me to roll new lucid tarballs?  would speed up build times to not be dist-upgrading them every build
[17:43] <lamont> slangasek: and I'm not clear what sort of schedule all y'all would like around that activity, in the general sense
[17:43] <slangasek> lamont: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing/lucid_probs.html
[17:43] <slangasek> certainly more installable than last night
[17:44] <lamont> slangasek: heh
[17:44] <lamont> interesting - I just upgraded twisted on a few buildds
[17:45] <cjwatson> nigelb: acked
[17:46] <nigelb> cjwatson, thanks :)
[19:15] <doko__> asac, slangasek: is the xulrunner-dev demotion seriously wanted? what's the replacement?
[19:17] <slangasek> doko__: sorry, what's the context?
[19:17] <slangasek> the upstream security policy impacts what we're going to be supporting
[19:17] <slangasek> i.e., "as little as possible"
[19:17] <doko__> slangasek: openjdk-6 build failure due to demotion
[19:18] <doko__> didn't see any warning before ...
[19:18] <slangasek> ah
[19:18] <slangasek> I don't know who demoted it; it shouldn't have been done while there were reverse-deps
[19:19] <slangasek> doko__: it looks like xulrunner-1.9.2 is in main now?
[19:20] <doko__> slangasek: ok, will reupload.
[19:21] <doko__> slangasek: I assume it is planned as well to update xulrunner to xulrunner-1.9.3 and so on for lts updates? does this mean you want to rebuild dependencies as well?
[19:24] <slangasek> if it's planned, it hasn't been mentioned to me; https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-lucid-new-firefox-support-model is the blueprint about this
[19:27] <doko__> the only thing about demotion I can find is: decide on demotion vs. droppage of xulrunner-1.9.x from the archive
[19:30] <ScottK> Personally, I think it should be removed, not demoted
[19:31] <slangasek> what does openjdk need xulrunner for, btw?  It doesn't seem to have a runtime dep on it?
[19:33] <doko__> slangasek: the plugin
[19:34] <slangasek> it only needs headers to build that, no runtime dep?  or is it statically linking something?
[19:34] <doko__> dynamically linking
[19:35] <doko__>  /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/*/IcedTeaPlugin.so
[19:35] <slangasek> doko__: I only see a dependency on libnspr4-0d; should it be build-depending on nspr instead of xulrunner?
[19:36] <slangasek> oh, hm, it links against xul but doesn't have a dep on it
[19:36] <doko__> $ ldd /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/i386/IcedTeaPlugin.so|grep 'not found'
[19:36] <doko__> 	libxul.so => not found
[19:36] <doko__> 	libxpcom.so => not found
[19:36] <doko__> ahh
[19:37] <slangasek> probably because of the "not found"
[19:37] <doko__> ok, let's add this manually ...
[19:37] <slangasek> dh_shlibdeps -l/path/to/libs?
[19:37] <doko__> asac: ^^^ I think we did have the problem before
[19:37] <doko__> will do
[19:50] <doko__> the xulrunner cooperation between debian and ubuntu is just 'nice' ...
[19:51] <doko__> sid: $ xulrunner-1.9.1 --gre-version
[19:51] <doko__> 1.9.1.8
[19:51] <doko__> but no directory with this version
[20:08] <doko__> asac: is there anything simpler?
[20:08] <doko__> echo /usr/lib/xulrunner-$($(basename $(pkg-config --libs-only-L libxul | sed  's/^-L//;s/-devel//;s,/lib *$,,' )) --gre-version | sed 's/^\(.....\).*/\1/')
[20:08] <doko__> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.2
[20:19] <doko__> slangasek: doesn't help:
[20:19] <doko__> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: Can't extract name and version from library name `libxpcom.so'
[20:19] <doko__> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: Can't extract name and version from library name `libxul.so'
[20:22] <slangasek> meh, figures
[20:36] <doko__> slangasek: xulrunner-1.9.* doesn't have any shlibs files
[20:36] <slangasek> well, and if it did they apparently wouldn't work due to the unversioned soname
[20:40] <doko__> filed bug #552780, I'll hardcode the dependency for now
[20:40] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 552780 in xulrunner-1.9.2 "how to properly link against libxul and libxpcom?" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/552780
[21:03] <Keybuk> slangasek: new mountall uploaded
[21:03] <Keybuk> buildds seem very behind today
[21:04] <Keybuk> so the screaming probably won't start until tomorrow
[21:22]  * ajmitch hopes that stuff uploaded in the next few hours won't get us told off?
[21:23] <slangasek> nope, it's my responsibility to pull the trigger on the archive freeze when it's time