/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/06/16/#ubuntu-mozillateam.txt

ftaasac, well, let me know if i should revert, or file a bug ;)00:04
asacfta: the gzipping is a lintian error ... i thinkwe should backout that part00:07
ftai already have lintian errors00:07
ftalzma is one of them00:08
asactrue. but we shouldnt add more ;)00:09
asacfor mostly nothing00:09
asacin the end your call ... but noone does that ;)00:09
ftabut noone's that big: http://paste.ubuntu.com/450326/00:18
ftaanyway, enough for today, i'm off00:19
ddecatorcya fta00:20
ddecatorwow, it takes an hour for me to pull the sb source and package it into a tar.gz...01:18
ddecatordang it, still failing in the same place..03:39
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
ddecatorok, so they changed the directory on the svn server for xr, got that updated so it pulls from the new location, updated the patches that wouldn't apply, but now it doesn't find libnotify. it's past 4am though so that's for tomorrow...night09:08
fta2asac, http://paste.ubuntu.com/450509/10:12
asacfta2: yep. we could check if PKG_DIR is hard depending on DEBIAN_NAME and dont do the replacement if its not10:15
asacnot sure if everything in chromium is hard depend though10:15
asace.g. ensure that the link is always resolvable if a package is installed10:15
fta2asac, re-read the code :)10:16
fta2hint: $(filter-out)10:16
fta2oh, i see what you meant. it's always a hard depend in that way10:19
asacfta2: i would think its worthwhile to improve the snippet so that it either a) does not create a link if the package does not hard depend ... or b) create a hard depend for a package that receives that link10:21
asacas a safety net10:21
asacwho knows if you will remember if you introduce a package that does not hard depend ;)10:21
asacand also that code might be useful to be integrated higher up10:22
asaclike what we do for changelogs10:22
asacetc.10:22
* asac still ponders on that he saw exactly this in some generic place at some point10:22
fta2asac, i only link duplicates created by this source package, and they all depend on the main deb (-dbg, -l10 and -inspector need the main path)10:23
fta2so if you want to uncouple -l10n, it can have its own copyright file, it will not be a copy10:23
fta2-copy+dupe10:23
asacright. but do we know that all packages will in future depend on the main deb?10:24
fta2i can add an exception variable but it's not needed atm10:26
asacfta2: so you said you found the place where we do the current magic with link etc.?10:26
fta2yes10:26
asacfta2: just saying would be worthwhile to extend that snippet to maybe move that to some generic helper or something at some point10:26
asacbut its definitly good as it is for chromium10:26
* gnomefreak thinks i wore sound-juicer out12:14
gnomefreakthat is disc #4 and it still not reading disks12:16
gnomefreaknow it works12:17
chrisccoulsonwe need to drop more mozilla extensions from the archive, we still have too many ;)12:28
gnomefreakisnt there ~12 extensions12:29
chrisccoulsonyeah, still too many ;)12:30
chrisccoulsonthat's not too bad actually, but updating all the extensions in hardy, jaunty and karmic is just crazy12:31
gnomefreaktrue12:31
* gnomefreak not real sure why you would backport the extensions without any security risk12:33
gnomefreakit just adds more work12:34
gnomefreaki say set up a bot and make a PPA for them12:34
gnomefreakbe back in a min. smoke12:35
chrisccoulsongnomefreak, we have to backport them to support the firefox 3.6 rollout12:39
gnomefreakah that makes sense12:40
chrisccoulsonbut this is why we dropped a lot of them during the last cycle12:40
* gnomefreak thinking12:42
asacchrisccoulson: we should keep native extensions and those ranking really high in popcon ;)15:22
asacoh ... think i already mentioned that ;)15:22
gnomefreaki was thinking make a poll or something like that15:24
gnomefreakexample without knowing other opinions we can drop xul-ext-webfav15:26
gnomefreakshouldnt go by popcon alone since it is not enabled by default15:26
gnomefreakreason i say drop that is because it has to do with something that we already can do15:29
gnomefreakfirefox-ubuntu-it-menu  << isnt this already the case when using IT locale?15:31
gnomefreakok nevermind i just read about it15:32
gnomefreaki guess this would be a bad time to say "i have an extension that we should package"?15:35
gnomefreak:)15:35
gnomefreakall this work and its only for the paid accounts16:01
gnomefreakbug 10379116:03
ubot4Launchpad bug 103791 in debian (and 1 other project) "[needs-packaging] pcsx2 (affects: 5) (dups: 1) (heat: 55)" [Unknown,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/10379116:03
ftacrimsun_, hi, are you still working on pulseaudio/alsa-plugins?16:21
gnomefreakasac: or chrisccoulson when we push 3.6.* where are we pushing to, proposed or security repos?16:22
chrisccoulsongnomefreak, to security16:22
gnomefreakchrisccoulson: thanks16:23
chrisccoulsonthey're are bing tested in ubuntu-mozilla-security, so please help testing if you have time :)16:23
chrisccoulsons/bing/being/16:23
gnomefreaki dont hae anything under Lucid that i can get to at least for a month or 216:23
chrisccoulsonkvm ftw :)16:24
gnomefreaki am going to ask people to test it :)16:26
chrisccoulsoncoo, thanks16:26
chrisccoulsonthere was an announcement for hardy testers a couple of weeks back. jaunty and karmic aren't quite ready yet, although most of the bits for karmic are in the PPA already16:26
gnomefreakdid we have to update apturl ?16:26
chrisccoulsonyeah, there's an updated apturl in the PPA (to move the conffile location)16:27
gnomefreakchrisccoulson: cool that should fix this bug :)16:28
gnomefreakchrisccoulson: it seems you knew about that bug. i posted to it from email than changed the source package on bug and than saw you reported it16:37
gnomefreakchrisccoulson: bug 59486416:37
ubot4Launchpad bug 594864 in apturl "apturl installs preferences in the wrong location for firefox 3.6.x (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/59486416:37
* gnomefreak heading for a smoke16:37
chrisccoulsongnomefreak - that bug was specifically for the version in hardy-backports ;)16:38
chrisccoulsonthe version in hardy is being handled through -security16:38
chrisccoulsonbut the version in -backports needs a bug report to fix it16:39
gnomefreakwhy are we backporting it if it is going to be update in firefox uploads?16:39
chrisccoulsongnomefreak - there is already a version of apturl in hardy-backports, which needs fixing also16:39
gnomefreakoh16:39
chrisccoulsonbut the official version in hardy will be handled through security, so no bug report16:40
gnomefreak!info apturl hardy-backports16:40
ubot4gnomefreak: 'hardy-backports' is not a valid distribution: hardy, jaunty, karmic, lucid, maverick16:40
gnomefreak!info apturl hardy backports16:40
ubot4gnomefreak: apturl (source: apturl): Install package with the apt protocol. In component main, is optional. Version 0.2.2ubuntu1 (hardy), package size 11 kB, installed size 180 kB16:40
gnomefreakdamn16:40
gnomefreakchrisccoulson: you adjusting it or should i?16:40
chrisccoulsongnomefreak - feel free to do that :)16:41
gnomefreakk changin it back16:41
chrisccoulsonthanks16:41
gnomefreaknp16:41
gnomefreaki think firefox has a leak16:41
gnomefreakfuck16:50
gnomefreakit seems its LP thaat is causing the major lag16:52
micahgfta: if you're dropping the testsuite anyways, why do we need the transitional package?19:56
micahgjdstrand: I'm switching gears to finish midbrowse tonight, kazehakase is not going well, but it's in universe, so I can update later19:57
micahgchrisccoulson: did you see planned release is tomorrow for 3.6.4?19:57
chrisccoulsonmicahg - no, i didn't know that yet19:59
micahgchrisccoulson: barring any problems w/build720:00
chrisccoulsoncool. right, i gotta go and make a phone call, then i will be back to do some more work20:01
micahgchrisccoulson: although still looks like they haven't fully committed20:01
micahgchrisccoulson: k20:01
jdstrandmicahg: k20:02
jlebarI was wondering what it would take to update the build-dep list for Firefox.  As you can see at https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Linux_Prerequisites , the current list is a little out of date.20:16
micahgjlebar: I think that list is when you use the upstream source as is20:17
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - karmic is updated in the PPA now btw20:47
chrisccoulson(although not tested very much)20:47
chrisccoulsoni'm going to do an upgrade tonight and test everything before we send out the call for testing to everyone20:47
chrisccoulsonjust to make sure most things are still working properly20:48
chrisccoulsonmicahg - those release meetings are on IRC are they?20:49
micahgchrisccoulson: no, but you can dial in21:01
jdstrandchrisccoulson: k, thanks. I'll test it in a bit21:04
micahgbdrung_: do you need any more info about my uploader application?21:32
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
jlebarmicahg, Ah, you mean that the dependencies are what you need to build the version of FF that Ubuntu ships?21:35
* jlebar isn't even sure where to look to list the packages which build-dep firefox pulls.21:35
micahgjlebar: the deps on the Ubuntu package are because of the packaging21:35
micahgjlebar: I'm guessing the deps on Mozilla's site are for their source tarball to build with their instructions21:36
micahgchrisccoulson: BTW, I'm going to reorganize the priorities on our blueprint since we're busy w/the ff3.6.4 transition and move most things between alpha3 and beta121:37
chrisccoulsonmicahg - cool, thanks. i've already postponed most of my other desktop work items to a321:38
micahgI hope I can still get 2 rounds of Debian merges in this cycle21:39
chrisccoulsonhopefully the 3.5.4 update work will wind down at the end of the week (although there will still be some xulrunner rdepends to port, all of the urgent work will be done by then)21:40
chrisccoulsonoops, 3.6.4 ;)21:40
micahgchrisccoulson: well, we stil have to do rdepends for jaunty and karmic21:40
micahgjaunty with more priority21:40
chrisccoulsonkarmic is not urgent yet, as 1.9.1 is still supported21:40
micahgchrisccoulson: right, but we have to make sure that they don't break w/xulrunner-1.9.2 on the syste,m21:41
chrisccoulsonthe urgent work really is getting firefox and extensions updated, and making sure all the plugins still work, or are updated21:41
chrisccoulsonyeah, we can hold off distributing 1.9.2 for karmic for now though, as there's currently nothing using it21:41
chrisccoulsonit's in the PPA already, but there's nothing built against it yet21:42
micahgchrisccoulson: that won't work since the plugins need to build-dep off of it21:42
micahgat least the ones that won't work OOTB with xul19221:42
micahgs/xul192/ff364/21:42
jlebarmicahg, What do you mean that the build deps are because of the packaging?21:42
bdrung_micahg: no, i just need time21:42
micahgbdrung_: k, no problem, thank you21:43
bdrung_micahg: didn't i sponsor more than the two bugs?21:43
micahgjlebar: because of the way we package it, we have certain dependencies that upstream might not21:43
micahgbdrung_: that's all I could find, possibly more that were superceded21:43
chrisccoulsonhopefully those should be minimal in karmic, as most of the plugins are just NPAPI plugins rather than using any xpcom21:43
micahgbdrung_: I can look a little more21:43
bdrung_thx21:43
chrisccoulsoneg, totem and rhythmbox don't need xulrunner in karmic21:43
jlebarmicahg, Ah.  That's fine.  What I'm concerned about is the other way around -- dependencies which Ubuntu doesn't have which upstream does.21:43
bdrung_micahg: there should be some mozilla releated packages21:44
micahgbdrung_: ok, I'll have to find a way to check that then21:44
micahgjlebar: there shouldn't be any21:44
bdrung_micahg: maybe searching your email archive?21:44
micahgjlebar: if you find one, let me know21:44
jlebarmicahg, https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Linux_Prerequisites says we need to get a bunch of packages in addition to build-dep firefox.21:45
micahgjlebar: like I said, we should have those, if you find one we need that's not on there, let me know21:46
jlebarI see.  I'm pretty sure it's missing some.  Let me pull up the lists and see.21:46
micahgbdrung_: bug 53687721:51
ubot4Launchpad bug 536877 in xiphos (Ubuntu) "Rebuild xiphos against xulrunner-1.9.2 (affects: 1) (heat: 34)" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/53687721:51
bdrung_micahg: you tend to have one liners21:52
micahgbdrung_: no, I have have some very substantial ones, but asac and chrisccoulson did most of them :)21:53
bdrung_micahg: small one are easier to review ;)21:53
bdrung_s/one/ones/21:53
chrisccoulsonheh, i should probably allocate some time to comment on your developer app tomorrow morning21:54
chrisccoulsonwhen is the next DMB meeting?21:54
chrisccoulsoni can probably comment when i run a hardy -> lucid upgrade test after the 3.6.4 updates21:54
chrisccoulsonmy laptop won't cope with much else ;)21:55
micahgchrisccoulson: Tuesday, so no rush21:55
micahgbdrung_: right :)21:55
chrisccoulsonah, tuesday is quite close. i should really do it tomorrow so they have time to review it21:55
micahgchrisccoulson: I sent the email to the list, but it hasn't been approved yet21:56
chrisccoulsoni keep delaying my core-dev application too, but i just haven't got time to work on it atm21:56
micahgchrisccoulson: well, you'll get Firefox upload rights from the Mozilla uploaders ;)21:59
chrisccoulsoni've already got firefox upload rights ;)21:59
chrisccoulsoni think the only thing i can't upload right now is xulrunner21:59
micahgchrisccoulson: ah, well, you should get that then21:59
chrisccoulsonyeah, that would be useful22:00
micahgI left out any rdepends in main to make the set less controversial22:01
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - firefox-showcase is giving me a headache. for some reason, that slipped through the net in lucid when we dropped lots of extensions from the archive22:01
chrisccoulsonbut, it hasn't been updated at all since jaunty22:01
chrisccoulsonand doesn't work in karmic and lucid22:01
chrisccoulsonbut does work in jaunty22:01
chrisccoulsonso, i need to still make it work in jaunty, which means i also need to update it in karmic (even though it doesn't work there), and then do a SRU for lucid to not break the upgrade path22:02
chrisccoulsonunless you can think of another way around that ;)22:02
chrisccoulsonunless we just update it in lucid as part of the security update too22:02
jdstrandman, that is a bit of a mess22:03
jdstrandso jaunty needs it in its update for sure22:03
chrisccoulsonyeah, it is. whatever i do in jaunty will give it a version number newer than karmic ;)22:04
jdstrandkarmic and lucid are currently broken, so I say fix it in SRU22:04
chrisccoulsonok, i can probably do that then22:04
jdstrandchrisccoulson: just make the version number in karmic and lucid higher than jaunty, target -proposed and all should be fine22:05
jdstrandobviously, there will be a few days where it is not fine, but the week wait can probably be bypassed for something that is totally broken22:05
chrisccoulsoni should have spotted that when i updated it for hardy really. the update in the PPA currently has a higher version than lucid22:06
chrisccoulsonwe should just provide disabled packages in karmic and lucid really?22:06
chrisccoulsons/disabled/empty22:06
jdstrandfirefox-showcase is also not listed in the qa tracker, so I missed testing it22:06
micahgchrisccoulson: I don't see it in Lucid22:06
jdstrand(I also didn't do hardy - lucid upgrade testing, as others seemed to be handling it, and that can really be fixed after the fact if something went wrong)22:07
micahgnm22:07
chrisccoulsonmicahg - https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-showcase22:07
chrisccoulsonperhaps it failed a rebuild test and the binaries dropped from the archive22:07
jdstrandchrisccoulson: was that disabled packages question for me? I'm saying fix it in SRU and we can maybe hurry up the process there since they are totally unusable now anyway22:08
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - i'm going to do an upgrade test tomorrow morning, to hopefully catch any more of these issues that might be lurking22:08
micahgchrisccoulson: weird, I don't the binaries are in Lucid22:10
jlebarmicahg, I think the firefox build deps are missing libcurl4-openssl-dev, mesa-common-dev, and yasm.22:21
micahgjlebar: I know mesa's in there22:21
jlebarmicahg, You're right.  It was hiding.22:23
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - bug 595276 fyi22:23
jlebarLet's see if these others are also hiding somewhere deep in the dependency tree.22:23
ubot4Launchpad bug 595276 in firefox-showcase (Ubuntu Karmic) (and 2 other projects) "firefox-showcase needs a SRU for karmic and lucid to not break the ugprade path from Jaunty (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/59527622:23
jdstrandthanks22:24
jdstrandoh, look at that, I am already subscribed. too easy22:24
jlebarlibcurl4 is also in there.  But I don't see yasm when I do apt-rdepends -b firefox | grep yasm22:26
jlebar^ micahg22:26
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - LP must be magic ;)22:26
micahgjlebar: I don't think we need it for building22:26
jlebarOnce I have a working build, I can try uninstalling it and see.22:26
jdstrand:)22:27
micahgchrisccoulson: please, no SRU with new binary in Lucid22:34
nonZeroHi!  will the  thunderbird-3.1 pkg be updated soon?23:19
micahgnonZero: early next month probably23:19
micahgnonZero: maybe end of this month23:19
nonZero:-( ok23:19
micahgnonZero: if you have time to fix it, I'll be happy to review :)23:20
nonZero:-)23:20
micahgnonZero: I need to help with the FF364/Xulrunner 1,9.2 backports, so everything else is on hold23:21
nonZerohow different are those pacakges from the original mozilla distributoin23:21
nonZero?23:21
micahgnonZero: well, our packaging has a .desktop file, so it's in the menu and the files are under apt control23:21
nonZerothat's all?23:22
micahgnonZero: we also use some system libraries23:22
nonZeromicahg: i.e., remove files from the original dist?23:22
micahgnonZero: no, we build from source and install what we need23:23
nonZeromicahg: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Simple_Thunderbird_build ?23:25
jdstrandchrisccoulson: fyi, you probably noticed this, but mozilla-stumbleupon ftbfs on karmic23:26
micahgnonZero: I'm not sure what you're asking23:27
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - thanks, i'll fix that shortly23:27
nonZeromicahg: nevermind.  thank you!23:27
micahgnonZero: k23:28
micahgchrisccoulson: can we just not upload a new binary to Lucid for firefox-showcase23:28
chrisccoulsonmicahg - i suppose that's possible23:28
micahgchrisccoulson: since there's no binary now and we're not planning on updating, it seems to make the most sense so that the package is EOL in Apr 2011 vs Apr 201323:29
chrisccoulsonyeah, that probably makes more sense23:31
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - stumbleupon, venkman and useragentswitcher all have the same issue as firefox-showcase (but only in karmic)23:32
micahgchrisccoulson: also, do you want to file a removal request for Maverick or should I?23:32
chrisccoulsonmicahg - already done :)23:33
jdstrandchrisccoulson: k. we should treat them the same then23:33
chrisccoulsoni opened one last night23:33
micahgchrisccoulson: k23:33
chrisccoulsonjdstrand - yeah, i added some extra tasks to the bug23:33
* micahg just found a malone bug :(23:35

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