[01:19] <micahg> Dimmuxx: beta update in topic :)
[01:26] <Dimmuxx> micahg: nice :)
[08:09] <fta2> chrisccoulson, mdeslaur: fyi: [Branch ~chromium-team/chromium-browser/channels] Rev 269: linux/stable (6.0.472.53 -> 6.0.472.55)
[13:02] <fta2> micahg, didn't you tell me that the icetea6 plugin works fine without the LD_LIBRARY_PATH workaround???
[13:03] <fta2> bug 633075
[13:03] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 633075 in chromium-browser (Ubuntu) "icedtea6 plugin will crash chromium-browser (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/633075
[13:21] <fta2> jdstrand, fyi: [Branch ~chromium-team/chromium-browser/channels] Rev 269: linux/stable (6.0.472.53 -> 6.0.472.55)
[13:25] <jdstrand> fta2: does this mean we need to reupload chromium or will we continue to wait on the SRU process and upload that after?
[13:26] <jdstrand> fta2: btw, the TB has been talking about chromium, but it isn't decided yet
[13:26] <fta2> jdstrand, it looks like a bunch regression fixes, nothing security related
[13:27] <fta2> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2010/09/stable-beta-channel-updates.html
[13:28] <jdstrand> I would say we could push that to -updates after, but I think we all know by the time what is in -proposed hits -security google will have released a new security fix release :P
[13:30] <fta2> jdstrand, there's no activity in sec channel since the last big update, so no idea when the next critical update will be
[13:32] <jdstrand> well, it seems getting what we have out sooner is more important than those bug fixes
[13:32] <jdstrand> I'd be happy to upload to -proposed though. ultimately, it is the same amount of work (since I would do that upload to -proposed wither way)
[13:32] <jdstrand> s/wither/either/
[13:52] <fta2> jdstrand, why is the TB taking so long to decide?
[14:16] <chrisccoulson> fta2 - i think it was me who told you that the icedtea plugin works without the LD_LIBRARY_PATH workaround
[14:17] <fta2> chrisccoulson, ok, then what is this new bug about? i don't understand
[14:18] <chrisccoulson> fta2 - which new bug?
[14:18] <chrisccoulson> oh
[14:18] <chrisccoulson> hang on :)
[14:18] <fta2> bug 633075
[14:18] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 633075 in chromium-browser (Ubuntu) "icedtea6 plugin will crash chromium-browser (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/633075
[14:19] <chrisccoulson> hmmm :/
[14:19] <jdstrand> fta2: I don't know
[14:19] <chrisccoulson> fta2 - ok, i'll have a look at exactly what was changed in a bit
[14:39] <fta2> chrisccoulson, jdstrand: http://www.iuculano.it/it/linux/debian/chromium-browser-removed-from-testing/
[14:40] <fta2> chrisccoulson, jdstrand: oops, http://www.iuculano.it/en/linux/debian/chromium-browser-removed-from-testing/
[14:43] <chrisccoulson> fta - interesting
[14:50] <chrisccoulson> wow, dpkg is so incredibly slow
[14:50] <chrisccoulson> all i want to do is install a few language packs and it's taken nearly 40 minutes so far
[14:50] <chrisccoulson> grrrrrr
[14:52] <fta2> the download part or the install part?
[14:55] <fta2> jdstrand, do you think people are using -security but not -upgrades?
[14:55] <jdstrand> fta2: yes. -security without -updates is a supported configuration
[14:57] <chrisccoulson> fta2 - unpacking is slow. and then dpkg runs all the triggers after installing each language pack too :/
[14:57] <chrisccoulson> isn't it meant to do that all in one go at the end?
[15:41] <roy_> Is the newest Firefox called Namoroka ?
[15:43] <Dimmuxx> roy_: that's 3.6.x
[15:44] <roy_> Because I added the ppa for the ubuntu mozilla daily build team and it updated my firefox which is now named as Namoroka
[15:45] <roy_> I am just abit confused why it changed the name from firefox to Namoroka
[15:46] <Dimmuxx> the daily ppa updates your stable 3.6.x release to an unstable 3.6.x daily build
[15:47] <roy_> I was trying to get firefox 4 ?
[15:48] <Dimmuxx> then you should install firefox-4.0
[15:48] <Dimmuxx> I would recommend waiting for the beta ppa though
[15:52] <roy_> ok thanks
[16:07] <fta> chrisccoulson, did you have a look at the ch/icetea6 bug?
[16:07] <chrisccoulson> fta - not yet, i've got some other things i need to finish first
[16:07] <fta> k
[17:02] <fta> hm, a new libvpx
[17:08] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I'll SRU the gjs/gnome-shell fix for lucid over the weekend
[17:13] <fta> firefox doesn't have translations for its desktop file??
[17:13] <micahg> fta: well, there are some
[17:13] <micahg> the dailies don't
[17:14] <fta> i see none in /usr/share/applications/firefox.desktop
[17:14] <micahg> I have them on my ssytem
[17:15] <fta> that's from umd
[17:15] <micahg> ah, yeah, they won't have it
[17:15] <fta> wgy?
[17:15] <fta> why?
[17:15] <micahg> not branded as Firefox
[17:15] <micahg> need different translations
[17:15] <dpm> fta, micahg, chrisccoulson: ah, that reminds me... I've been collecting some translations for the desktop file in FF and Thunderbird. If I file a bug, could you include them by NonLanguagePackTranslationDeadline on the 16th? They are here:
[17:16] <dpm>   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Translations/Wanted/FirefoxDesktop
[17:16] <micahg> dpm: yeah, I can take care of it this weekend
[17:16] <fta> same for chromium: bug 631670
[17:16] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 631670 in chromium-browser (Ubuntu) "Chromium .desktop file is not using translations (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Low,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/631670
[17:17] <dpm> micahg, no rush, I'd like to give translators time until the nonlangpack deadline, as it fits more with the translations workflow, if that's ok with you
[17:17] <dpm> fta, yeah, same for that one, thanks :)
[17:17] <micahg> dpm: k, I can do an upload tuesday night then
[17:17] <fta> dpm, i've just merged the 1st batch
[17:19] <dpm> micahg, fta, it's awesome that you are merging them already - I just want to make sure if it's ok with you to receive the last batch on the 16th on NonLanguagePackDeadline
[17:19] <micahg> dpm: yes, but that's supposed to be by UTC midnight of the 16th everything is supposed to be uploaded already
[17:20] <micahg> dpm: I can do an upload around 0400 UTC on the 16th, and I hope the archive isn't frozen by then
[17:20] <micahg> dpm: chromium you have more leeway since it's in universe
[17:21] <dpm> micahg, that'd be great, even if you want to do the upload on the 15th. Time for translations is not that critical in that case, as long it is close to the nonlangpackdeadline
[17:22] <dpm> I can tell translators to have them ready by the 15th
[17:28] <micahg> dpm: that'll be fine, I'll upload 16th at 0400 UTC (15th 10PM local time :))
[17:29] <dpm> micahg, awesome, thanks!
[17:29] <micahg> dpm: np
[17:51] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, firefox needs a source patch to support localized values for spellchecker.dictionary :(
[17:52] <chrisccoulson> i suppose i can at least send that upstream
[17:55] <kees> fta: say, can I convince you to build chromium with PIE?
[17:56] <fta> kees, PIE? as in -fPIE?
[17:58] <kees> fta: yeah
[17:59] <kees> fta: could be done either via hardening-wrapper (easy) or via hardening-includes (less easy but still easy)
[18:00] <fta> kees, should i expect regressions?
[18:01] <fta> kees, i guess i can give it a try with the dailies...
[18:02] <kees> fta: if so, it's a horrible bug in the compiler. or chromium is doing something unholy. which, I guess is possible.
[18:02] <kees> fta: but in normal conditions, it should be fine.
[18:03] <kees> fta: you can use "hardening-check" in the hardening-includes package to validate the results.
[18:15] <fta> kees, hmm.. i use the same packaging for the backports.. down to hardy, i guess it's a problem
[18:17] <fta> oh, hardening-wrapper 1.11 is in hardy
[18:18] <kees> yeah, should be fine even in hardy.
[18:18] <kees> and if it's not, I'd be happy to help with the rules file :)
[18:20] <fta> kees, chromium runs in a sandbox, i'm not sure what kind of benefit we can obtain with this..
[18:30] <kees> fta: my understanding is that the sandbox isn't actually enabled on linux yet.
[18:31] <fta> kees, of course it is. the suid one. /usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser-sandbox
[18:32] <fta> (not the seccomp one)
[18:33] <fta> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=36133
[18:35] <kees> ah, okay, it's doing containers, not seccomp. okay, cool. I didn't know there were two. still, PIE is yet-another-protection. :)
[18:38] <fta> i'm doing a test build in a pbuilder, but i'm not sure it's even being used
[19:11] <fta> kees, it's using ccache???
[19:13] <kees> fta: what?
[19:13] <fta> kees, hardening-wrapper
[19:13] <kees> no
[19:13] <kees> it's just a wrapper
[19:14] <fta> or is it pbuilder?
[19:15] <fta> cube:~/chromium-browser-7.0.519.0~svn20100908r58782# hardening-check debian/chromium-browser/usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser
[19:15] <fta> debian/chromium-browser/usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser:
[19:15] <fta>  Position Independent Executable: yes
[19:15] <fta>  Stack protected: yes
[19:15] <fta>  Fortify Source functions: yes
[19:15] <fta>  Read-only relocations: yes
[19:15] <fta>  Immediate binding: yes
[19:16] <fta> kees, ^^
[19:20] <kees> \o/
[19:43] <fta> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ba1BqJ4S2M
[19:59] <fta> micahg, there's a new libvpx, it seems to bring lots of improvements, perf wise
[20:00] <fta> i put it in ucd
[20:01] <micahg> fta: thanks, I think we're going to stick with in-source vpx for Firefox, but I can check with chrisccoulson
[20:03] <micahg> fta: is it worth getting into maverick?
[20:03] <fta> micahg, would be nice imho, but slomo is the owner
[20:04] <micahg> fta: oh
[20:05] <fta> i'm auto-importing it from the gst-dev ppa and i auto-backport it for all arches for the 4 chromium ppas
[20:06] <fta> something like this in a daily cron: http://paste.ubuntu.com/490518/
[20:23] <chrisccoulson> yeah, we'll probably stick with in-source vpx for firefox
[21:26] <fta> is firefox built with PIC now?
[21:26] <micahg> fta: PIC or PIE?
[21:27] <fta> PIE sorrt
[21:27] <fta> y
[21:27] <micahg> fta: yes, it's been that way since Lucid IIRC
[21:28] <fta> k
[21:45] <fta> BUGabundo, hey!
[21:45] <BUGabundo> hey fta
[21:45] <BUGabundo> do tell
[21:46] <fta> ?
[21:46] <fta> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ba1BqJ4S2M
[21:46] <fta> funny
[21:49] <BUGabundo> fta: plenty
[21:49] <BUGabundo> let me laugh at a blank screen
[21:49] <fta> ?
[21:49] <BUGabundo> or when ever chromium works
[21:49] <fta> it's fine here
[21:50] <BUGabundo> 7.0.519.0 (58782) Ubuntu 10.10
[21:50] <fta> same
[21:51] <BUGabundo> let me do a clean profile and gdb
[21:51] <BUGabundo> $ chromium-browser -g --temp-profile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ba1BqJ4S2M
[21:51] <BUGabundo> it does work :S
[21:52] <BUGabundo> flash
[21:52] <BUGabundo> my profile is set to HTML5
[21:55] <fta> html5 too here
[22:03] <BUGabundo> fta: its working now
[22:03] <BUGabundo> it was noscripting addong
[22:04] <fta> i don't use that
[22:06] <BUGabundo> testing it for two days
[23:58] <fta> kees, did some testing of this chromium pie build (maverick 32), worked fine. just committed it in the daily branch (hoping it will work for the backports), next daily planed in a few hours. if no regression emerges, i'll land it to the other branches, and ship it in the next stable update