=== Mook_ is now known as Mook | ||
=== davida is now known as davidascher | ||
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
=== jorge is now known as jcastro | ||
=== BUGabundo1 is now known as BUGabundo | ||
Al_1 | kbrosnan: should I repeat the question here? | 15:58 |
---|---|---|
Al_1 | hi, do you guys know if firefox-next ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-next?field.series_filter=maverick is going to be updated soon to the new beta? | 16:00 |
Al_1 | micahg: hi, is firefox-next ppa https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-next?field.series_filter=maverick going to be updated soon to the new beta? :) | 17:51 |
micahg | Al_1: yes, I forget what we're waiting on ATM | 17:51 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: ^^ | 17:51 |
Al_1 | ok, thanks micahg :) | 17:52 |
micahg | Al_1: I can't wait myself to get the new JS engine :) | 17:53 |
Al_1 | ;) | 18:51 |
fta | jcastro, http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-dev/browse_thread/thread/eaf3923ca175bd34# may be interesting to follow for someone on our side, please forward | 19:53 |
bdrung | micahg, chrisccoulson, asac: we have a problem in natty: bug #674171 - it probably will break all new builds of extensions | 20:08 |
ubot2 | Launchpad bug 674171 in mozilla-devscripts (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "[NATTY] Adblock 1.3.1doesn't load up in FF 3.6.12 (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/674171 | 20:08 |
micahg | bdrung: I saw that, so is that the bug that question marks are added? | 20:15 |
bdrung | micahg: yes | 20:15 |
micahg | bdrung: ok, do you want me to try to fix it? | 20:15 |
micahg | I can't look at it until the weekend though | 20:15 |
chrisccoulson | well, all extensions will stop working next week anyway | 20:17 |
chrisccoulson | (once FF4 is in) | 20:17 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: no, abp is ready for FF4 | 20:17 |
chrisccoulson | oh, that's ok then. but, i guess most others will stop working ;) | 20:17 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: right :) | 20:18 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: I'll try to finish up TB on lucid tonight if I can otherwise by Monday | 20:18 |
chrisccoulson | thanks | 20:18 |
bdrung | micahg: thanks for the offer. it yours unless i have the time to digg into it before the weekend. | 20:18 |
micahg | bdrung: k, np | 20:19 |
* micahg guesses subscribing would be a good thing | 20:19 | |
micahg | bdrung: would this be a 0.25 release to Debian experimental or 0.24.1? | 20:20 |
micahg | or just take dch -i's default | 20:20 |
chrisccoulson | m'eh, using strings in firefox is so confusing | 20:21 |
bdrung | micahg: 0.25 | 20:22 |
micahg | bdrung: k | 20:22 |
asac | chrisccoulson: whats going on with debian ... they dont even have iw 3.6 in unstable/testing? | 20:25 |
asac | 3.5.15-1 | 20:25 |
micahg | asac: no because SeaMonkey can't be built on 1.9.2 | 20:25 |
asac | is that the version they want to release as stable? thought its already EOL | 20:25 |
chrisccoulson | asac - yeah, it's crazy that they're going to release with a browser that's pretty much EOL | 20:25 |
asac | what has sm to do with iw ? | 20:25 |
asac | i thought they dont use xr as base anymore too | 20:26 |
chrisccoulson | we're going to be 2 whole releases ahead of debian within the next week or so ;) | 20:26 |
asac | or are they still stuck with that approach ;) | 20:26 |
asac | and all because they think the rational "duplication of code makes security support harder" ;) | 20:27 |
micahg | asac: yeah, they want to build ID, IW, and IA all off of one xulrunner | 20:28 |
chrisccoulson | i don't think duplication of code makes security support harder in this case, when we still have to deal with the same number of tarballs ;) | 20:28 |
asac | id even? | 20:28 |
asac | i think i will start calling my id guy again ;) | 20:29 |
micahg | asac: here's the thread on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/06/msg00535.html | 20:30 |
asac | i am not sure i want to read that ;) | 20:30 |
asac | " there is not enough hand power to maintain several versions of | 20:31 |
asac | xulrunner in the same suite (especially stable) | 20:31 |
asac | " | 20:31 |
asac | i remember how i was bashed to use versioned xulrunner source | 20:31 |
asac | i mean ... atm, they dont maintain it at all | 20:31 |
asac | "Security support | 20:32 |
asac | for stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the | 20:32 |
asac | whole gecko ecosystem.Security support | 20:32 |
asac | for stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the | 20:32 |
asac | whole gecko ecosystem." | 20:32 |
micahg | asac: makes some sense, since they won't jump versions, they're stuck backporting patches for only one xul version | 20:32 |
asac | right. but thats the problem | 20:34 |
asac | if you bump into walls for years and fail constantly its time to take a step back and look for a different route | 20:34 |
micahg | asac: indeed, but it's Debian, if you want to bump versions in a stable release, you need to be in volatile | 20:34 |
asac | if there is no other path, you have to build one, rather than running against known walls again | 20:34 |
micahg | which was actually proposed and shot down on the ML | 20:34 |
asac | thats all bull shit. when i started doing security backports for debian they couldnt even do minor version upgrades | 20:35 |
asac | i was able to ensure that this can happen by working hard | 20:35 |
asac | its really just some egos that dont want to adopt ubuntu approaches ;) | 20:35 |
asac | i mean ... even if you cannot security maintain xulrunner, at least do it for iceweasel | 20:35 |
asac | and make a standalone package for it | 20:35 |
asac | same for icedove ;) | 20:35 |
asac | anyway .... me stops now | 20:36 |
micahg | asac: they still won't jump minor versions (i.e. lenny has 3.0.6) | 20:36 |
asac | yes they do | 20:36 |
asac | well ... no clue why that is | 20:36 |
asac | but a while back we were able to do minor version bumps | 20:36 |
asac | and it was perfectly fine... its just that noone does those uploads i figure | 20:36 |
asac | and they hide under some pseudo arguments that are completely untrue ;) | 20:36 |
asac | as a matter of fact the debian maintainer just cares about unstable | 20:37 |
asac | but well... /me stops ;) | 20:37 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: oh, BTW, pyxpcom was FTBFS and I said I'd look into it, are we blacklisting or can we make it work? | 20:38 |
chrisccoulson | micahg - we shouldn't take pyxpcom atm, it just won't work with the way we package xulrunner | 20:53 |
chrisccoulson | and i don't want to have to update pyxpcom every time we do a firefox update ;) | 20:53 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: so blacklist, as unmaintainable for the moment? | 20:54 |
chrisccoulson | yeah, that would be best | 20:56 |
micahg | chrisccoulson: k, thanks, I'll take care of it | 20:56 |
chrisccoulson | thanks | 20:56 |
asac | chrisccoulson: whats actually the reason for the plugin-container always looping even though there is no website open? | 21:13 |
asac | is that a known bug or just me? | 21:14 |
chrisccoulson | asac - hmmmm, is it actually using the CPU? | 21:15 |
chrisccoulson | i think it's by design that plugin-container keeps running | 21:15 |
asac | chrisccoulson: not sure... i looked at powertop a few times and found that its under top 6 of wakeup reasons all the time ;) | 21:16 |
asac | interestingly right now its not doing it | 21:16 |
chrisccoulson | asac - along with firefox? ;) | 21:17 |
asac | but i am sure it was doing it all day even though no tab was open | 21:17 |
asac | chrisccoulson: yeah. firefox is also always there | 21:17 |
asac | but plugin-container was more astonishing as there was no plugin active for sure | 21:17 |
chrisccoulson | yeah, firefox is pretty bad for wakeups | 21:17 |
asac | e.g. just a grey tab | 21:17 |
asac | right. i dont know if firefox problem can be fixed ever ;) | 21:17 |
chrisccoulson | yeah, i'm not sure either. i'd love to be able to fix it ;) | 21:18 |
=== maxb_ is now known as maxb |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!