/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/11/11/#ubuntu-mozillateam.txt

=== 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_1kbrosnan: should I repeat the question here?15:58
Al_1hi, 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_1micahg: 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
micahgAl_1: yes, I forget what we're waiting on ATM17:51
micahgchrisccoulson: ^^17:51
Al_1ok, thanks micahg :)17:52
micahgAl_1: I can't wait myself to get the new JS engine :)17:53
Al_1;)18:51
ftajcastro, 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 forward19:53
bdrungmicahg, chrisccoulson, asac: we have a problem in natty: bug #674171 - it probably will break all new builds of extensions20:08
ubot2Launchpad 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/67417120:08
micahgbdrung: I saw that, so is that the bug that question marks are added?20:15
bdrungmicahg: yes20:15
micahgbdrung: ok, do you want me to try to fix it?20:15
micahgI can't look at it until the weekend though20:15
chrisccoulsonwell, all extensions will stop working next week anyway20:17
chrisccoulson(once FF4 is in)20:17
micahgchrisccoulson: no, abp is ready for FF420:17
chrisccoulsonoh, that's ok then. but, i guess most others will stop working ;)20:17
micahgchrisccoulson: right :)20:18
micahgchrisccoulson: I'll try to finish up TB on lucid tonight if I can otherwise by Monday20:18
chrisccoulsonthanks20:18
bdrungmicahg: thanks for the offer. it yours unless i have the time to digg into it before the weekend.20:18
micahgbdrung: k, np20:19
* micahg guesses subscribing would be a good thing20:19
micahgbdrung: would this be a 0.25 release to Debian experimental or 0.24.1?20:20
micahgor just take dch -i's default20:20
chrisccoulsonm'eh, using strings in firefox is so confusing20:21
bdrungmicahg: 0.2520:22
micahgbdrung: k20:22
asacchrisccoulson: whats going on with debian ... they dont even have iw 3.6 in unstable/testing?20:25
asac3.5.15-120:25
micahgasac: no because SeaMonkey can't be built on 1.9.220:25
asacis that the version they want to release as stable? thought its already EOL20:25
chrisccoulsonasac - yeah, it's crazy that they're going to release with a browser that's pretty much EOL20:25
asacwhat has sm to do with iw ?20:25
asaci thought they dont use xr as base anymore too20:26
chrisccoulsonwe're going to be 2 whole releases ahead of debian within the next week or so ;)20:26
asacor are they still stuck with that approach ;)20:26
asacand all because they think the rational  "duplication of code makes security support harder" ;)20:27
micahgasac: yeah, they want to build ID, IW, and IA all off of one xulrunner20:28
chrisccoulsoni 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
asacid even?20:28
asaci think i will start calling my id guy again ;)20:29
micahgasac: here's the thread on debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/06/msg00535.html20:30
asaci am not sure i want to read that ;)20:30
asac" there is not enough hand power to maintain several versions of20:31
asac  xulrunner in the same suite (especially stable)20:31
asac"20:31
asaci remember how i was bashed to use versioned xulrunner source20:31
asaci mean ... atm, they dont maintain it at all20:31
asac"Security support20:32
asacfor stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the20:32
asacwhole gecko ecosystem.Security support20:32
asacfor stable will be easier if there is only one branch to support for the20:32
asacwhole gecko ecosystem."20:32
micahgasac: makes some sense, since they won't jump versions, they're stuck backporting patches for only one xul version20:32
asacright. but thats the problem20:34
asacif you bump into walls for years and fail constantly its time to take a step back and look for a different route20:34
micahgasac: indeed, but it's Debian, if you want to bump versions in a stable release, you need to be in volatile20:34
asacif there is no other path, you have to build one, rather than running against known walls again20:34
micahgwhich was actually proposed and shot down on the ML20:34
asacthats all bull shit. when i started doing security backports for debian they couldnt even do minor version upgrades20:35
asaci was able to ensure that this can happen by working hard20:35
asacits really just some egos that dont want to adopt ubuntu approaches ;)20:35
asaci mean ... even if you cannot security maintain xulrunner, at least do it for iceweasel20:35
asacand make a standalone package for it20:35
asacsame for icedove ;)20:35
asacanyway .... me stops now20:36
micahgasac: they still won't jump minor versions (i.e. lenny has 3.0.6)20:36
asacyes they do20:36
asacwell ... no clue why that is20:36
asacbut a while back we were able to do minor version bumps20:36
asacand it was perfectly fine... its just that noone does those uploads i figure20:36
asacand they hide under some pseudo arguments that are completely untrue ;)20:36
asacas a matter of fact the debian maintainer just cares about unstable20:37
asacbut well... /me stops ;)20:37
micahgchrisccoulson: oh, BTW, pyxpcom was FTBFS and I said I'd look into it, are we blacklisting or can we make it work?20:38
chrisccoulsonmicahg - we shouldn't take pyxpcom atm, it just won't work with the way we package xulrunner20:53
chrisccoulsonand i don't want to have to update pyxpcom every time we do a firefox update ;)20:53
micahgchrisccoulson: so blacklist, as unmaintainable for the moment?20:54
chrisccoulsonyeah, that would be best20:56
micahgchrisccoulson: k, thanks, I'll take care of it20:56
chrisccoulsonthanks20:56
asacchrisccoulson: whats actually the reason for the plugin-container always looping even though there is no website open?21:13
asacis that a known bug or just me?21:14
chrisccoulsonasac - hmmmm, is it actually using the CPU?21:15
chrisccoulsoni think it's by design that plugin-container keeps running21:15
asacchrisccoulson: not sure... i looked at powertop a few times and found that its under top 6 of wakeup reasons all the time ;)21:16
asacinterestingly right now its not doing it21:16
chrisccoulsonasac - along with firefox? ;)21:17
asacbut i am sure it was doing it all day even though no tab was open21:17
asacchrisccoulson: yeah. firefox is also always there21:17
asacbut plugin-container was more astonishing as there was no plugin active for sure21:17
chrisccoulsonyeah, firefox is pretty bad for wakeups21:17
asace.g. just a grey tab21:17
asacright. i dont know if firefox problem can be fixed ever ;)21:17
chrisccoulsonyeah, 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!