[06:57] <abez> Can anyone play html5/webm youtube videos in Firefox 4.0b6 or 4.0b8pre from an ubuntu ppa?
[06:57] <abez> With Firefox 4.0 Beta PPA http://is.gd/f6TM4 I can't
[06:57] <micahg> abez: we'll be updating that to beta 7 soon
[06:57] <abez> Nor with the Ubuntu Mozilla Daily Build Team build
[06:58] <abez> micahg: Well I'm just trying to figure out how to use firefox4 to play youtube videos w/o flash and I keep running into trouble.
[06:58] <abez> the only client that works consistently is the official one
[06:59] <abez> at least for me on amd64
[06:59] <micahg> abez: could be a bug
[06:59] <micahg> I haven't looked into too much with WebM, do you have a sample video?
[07:00] <abez> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHT-GmbmS7U
[07:00] <abez> This one is webm, works in chromium for me
[07:01] <micahg> hmm, shows in flash for me
[07:01] <abez> works in the official 4.0b8pre client
[07:01]  * micahg also isn't signed in to youtube
[07:01] <abez> Oh add &webm=1&html5=1
[07:02] <abez> or go here (no login) http://www.youtube.com/html5
[07:02] <micahg> abez: oh foo, the next beta will work, they're User Agent sniffing, not feature sniffing
[07:02] <abez> I'm not convinced
[07:02] <abez> I spoofed like mad
[07:03] <micahg> oh, wait, hmm, it says I'm in the trial :-/
[07:04] <abez> so does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHT-GmbmS7U or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDAEY-8K-Q work for you?
[07:04] <micahg> abez: can you please file a bug here: http://is.gd/hdZc1
[07:04] <micahg> abez: no
[07:05] <micahg> both show in flash
[07:10] <abez> fine: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-ppa-bugs/+bug/676383
[07:10] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 676383 in ubuntu-mozilla-ppa-bugs "Youtube webm html5 videos do not work with the PPA but work with the official firefox.com client (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New]
[07:10] <micahg> abez: thank you
[17:23] <bdrung> micahg: do you have time to look at bug #411740?
[17:23] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 411740 in nspluginwrapper (Ubuntu) "REVIEW/SPONSOR: Please review and sponsor nspluginwrapper 1.3.0-0ubuntu2 (affects: 2) (heat: 13)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/411740
[17:33] <micahg> bdrung: I tried last cycle to get that in, it currently FTBFS in Maverick (it'll be worse on Natty), I will try again this cycle, but can't promise when, I don't see it helping much anyways (i'd like to get rid of the need for it in Firefox if we get multiarch)
[17:33] <micahg> but I guess it's good to know someone started on it, maybe that'll fix a few issues
[17:37] <micahg> chrisccoulson: don't wait on me for the FF4 bugs in the changelog, go for it when it's ready, if I have time I'll add them, otherwise, I'll just close them manually
[17:37] <bdrung> micahg: this bug is old
[17:38] <chrisccoulson> micahg - ok, i'm just about ready to upload now
[17:38] <micahg> I already added the maverick changelogs that are already in Natty, so that much should be fine
[17:38] <micahg> and it seems you already cleaned up the FF4 changelog
[17:38] <chrisccoulson> just tested the firefox upgrade path, and there's no issues there
[17:38] <chrisccoulson> will test abrowser in a minute, but i think it will work
[17:38] <micahg> bdrung: very, yes
[17:38] <micahg> nspluginwrapper bugs are ignored ATM
[17:39] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: i had an installation issue with abrowser-4.0 from umd on maverick
[17:40] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, that doesn't surprise me
[17:40] <chrisccoulson> that's currently whats blocked the natty upload
[17:40] <chrisccoulson> i officially hate abrowser now
[17:40] <micahg> bdrung: upstream for nspluginwrapper has been dead for a while
[17:40] <chrisccoulson> awesome to see FF4.0 with proper branding :)
[17:41] <micahg> I can't wait to see that as well (I'm sure our beta testers will also agree)
[17:41] <chrisccoulson> right, need to downgrade again and test the same for abrowser now
[17:42] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: the packages that's had the failure was firefox-4.0-core (which abrowser depends on)
[17:42] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, oh, that sounds like something different
[17:43] <chrisccoulson> we have an issue with the new packaging because abrowser users need to have the firefox package removed during upgrade, because of the restructuring
[17:43] <bdrung> and help -> about has an xml parser error
[17:43] <chrisccoulson> and apt completely gets confused and does totally the wrong thing
[17:44] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, yeah, that's expected. the abrowser branding is totally non-functional until we find someone interested in artwork who wants to fix it
[17:44] <chrisccoulson> but i'm not blocking firefox for that
[17:44] <chrisccoulson> the upstream branding changed a fair bit, and abrowser needs updating too
[17:45] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I thought you said you had someone to do the artwork
[17:45] <chrisccoulson> micahg, i might have found somebody to take responsibility for it
[17:46] <chrisccoulson> we'll have to wait and see what happens though ;)
[17:46] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: how about collaborating with debian with the artwork?
[17:46] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, debian use different branding again, and they are 2 entire firefox releases behind us now
[17:46] <chrisccoulson> they haven't even migrated to 3.6 yet ;)
[17:47] <chrisccoulson> we're pretty much on our own for that
[17:48] <micahg> chrisccoulson: let me know I have a couple people I might be able to tap for the artwork
[17:48] <chrisccoulson> that would be useful :)
[17:49] <chrisccoulson> i *think* it's mainly the about dialog that needs attention
[17:49] <chrisccoulson> i know that's the one bit where the branding changed quite a bit
[17:49] <chrisccoulson> but there could be other places where it doesn't work
[17:50] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: they have 3.6 in experimental.
[17:51] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, yeah, we're just about to drop that from natty
[17:51] <chrisccoulson> (in the next few minutes)
[17:52] <bdrung> i would like to see a situation similar to chromium/chrome for FF. one branded FF (chrome) and one free branded used by debian, abrowser (chromium)
[17:53] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, abrowser upgrade still results in the firefox branding being installed, but that doesn't seem any worse than before (installing abrowser pulls in firefox-branding)
[17:53] <micahg> bdrung: Firefox branding is Free and open source
[17:54] <chrisccoulson> and i want to move away from having 2 browsers, it's too much of a maintenance burden
[17:54] <chrisccoulson> there are currently still some users of abrowser in canonical though. but, in general, there is no other reason to have abrowser in the archive
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> as micahg pointed out, the icon is free now
[17:55] <chandler> Hello folks. Is the firefox-next PPA going to be updated with 4.0b7 builds, or is there some other PPA I should be following?
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> chandler, yes, soon
[17:55] <chrisccoulson> after natty gets it
[17:55] <chandler> Great, thanks.
[17:56] <bdrung> micahg: but there is the trademark problem
[17:57] <chrisccoulson> "problem"?
[17:57] <chrisccoulson> mozilla does protect their trademark, but is it really a problem?
[17:58] <chrisccoulson> it's not a problem for users
[17:58] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: the reason why debian has renamed ff
[17:58] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, and the icon being not free in the past
[17:58] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: but they are now?
[17:59] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I think he means software can't be branded as such and redistributed which violates the DFSG
[17:59] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: iceweasel could use the same icons?
[17:59] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, no, you'd need to call it firefox to use the same icons
[18:00] <bdrung> if you want to use your right to fully modify the source, you have to change the branding
[18:00] <chrisccoulson> well, that's fair enough
[18:01] <chrisccoulson> but i'm not sure that's really a problem for us
[18:02] <bdrung> it's only a problem for people who have a very strict view on freedom and FSF people
[18:02] <micahg> chrisccoulson: right, which is why we have Firefox and Debian doesn't :)
[18:04] <chrisccoulson> the mozilla trademarks are protected just like the ubuntu trademark is protected too
[21:54] <micahg> chrisccoulson: moving here to spare the people trying to coordinate other stuff, do you think we can manage the packaging changes?
[21:55] <chrisccoulson> micahg - not really. all of the changes result in the need to remove firefox during the upgrade for abrowser users, which the package manager has a hard time coping with
[21:55] <chrisccoulson> it pretty much gets it wrong every time
[21:56] <micahg> chrisccoulson: I mean by Natty final
[21:56] <chrisccoulson> not sure ;)
[21:57] <micahg> chrisccoulson: ok, does -trunk have all the fixes not related to package names that you included in the natty upload?
[21:57] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i think so
[21:57] <micahg> ok
[21:58] <chrisccoulson> you'll probably want to copy the patches from the natty upload though
[21:58] <micahg> I probably won't get to this until Thursday night then
[21:58] <micahg> ok
[21:58] <chrisccoulson> well, my upload seems to have disappeared in to the ether
[21:58] <chrisccoulson> i haven't had an e-mail back yet telling me whether it was successful or not
[22:00] <micahg> [ubuntu/natty] firefox 4.0~b7+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)       (Chris Coulson)  \o/
[22:01] <chrisccoulson> yay \o/
[22:01] <chrisccoulson> :)
[22:01] <chrisccoulson> identi.ca time
[22:05] <chrisccoulson> i think the xulrunner package is pretty much good to go too
[22:05] <chrisccoulson> i might do that before i go to bed
[22:05] <chrisccoulson> it's not so bad if that's broken, as there's nothing in the archive using it (and it has to go through NEW anyway)
[22:06] <micahg> too long :-/
[22:06] <chrisccoulson> heh :)
[22:07] <micahg> got rid of the PIE stuff, not interesting to most people
[22:11] <micahg> chrisccoulson: well, the new conkeror could use xul20 if I patch it
[22:11] <chrisccoulson> micahg - do you think the -testsuite stuff is useful in xulrunner? i'm not sure whether to keep it or not (we run the test suite in firefox anyway, and i'm not sure how useful the testsuite binaries are without the rest of the build tree)
[22:11] <micahg> just the wrapper script
[22:11] <chrisccoulson> will conkeror work by just changing that?
[22:12] <BUGabundo> PIE? cool
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, i love PIE
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> :)
[22:12] <micahg> chrisccoulson: yeah, they already have support for 2.0
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> cool
[22:12]  * micahg hands BUGabundo a piece of PIE
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> ok, i think i'll get xr-2.0 prepared now, and get it in to the new queue
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> we can start porting then ;)
[22:12] <chrisccoulson> and it should be API stable-ish now too
[22:14] <micahg> in theory
[22:14] <debfx> chrisccoulson: have you merged the kde integration for beta7?
[22:14] <chrisccoulson> debfx, not yet, sorry. there's a note in the changelog about that
[22:15] <chrisccoulson> i just haven't had time to do it, but it will be merged before the next upload
[22:17] <debfx> I'm not sure if patch still applies to the new beta
[22:17] <debfx> does the natty firefox package also build on maverick?
[22:19] <micahg> debfx: I'll be testing that tomorrow night, I'll be uploading to the firefox-next PPA after I test it
[22:20] <micahg> debfx: last night's dailies worked fine
[22:34] <chrisccoulson> micahg - i noticed that the firefox binary gets a nss and nspr dependency
[22:34] <chrisccoulson> that seems wrong to me
[22:34] <micahg> I can't wait to see the better memory management in b7
[22:34] <chrisccoulson> i guess dh_shlibdeps needs running with LD_LIBRARY_PATH
[22:35] <micahg> chrisccoulson: yeah, that's should be wrong
[22:35] <BUGabundo> anyone knows of a PPA to install Adobe Air ? ;(
[22:35] <micahg> ppa:ih8freedom/ppa ?
[22:36] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, it's in the partner repo isn't it?
[22:36] <micahg> BUGabundo: I'm guessing you can't since it can't be freely distributed, but it should be in partner
[22:36] <BUGabundo> for natty 64bits?
[22:36] <BUGabundo> there is no partner repo, right?
[22:37] <micahg> BUGabundo: partner uploads happen later in the cycle, try maverick partner
[22:37] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, i doubt there is an Abobe Air for 64-bit machines is there?
[22:37] <chrisccoulson> (at all)
[22:37] <BUGabundo> right
[22:38] <BUGabundo> all I see online is huge manuals to convert it
[22:38] <BUGabundo> I can't even force install the 32bits deb
[22:41] <micahg> chrisccoulson: if yelp ends up with webkit, maybe we can drop nss/nspr from the CD?
[22:41] <chrisccoulson> micahg - it's used by evolution
[22:41] <micahg> oh
[22:41] <micahg> thunderbird FTW?
[22:42] <BUGabundo> and in case any of you actually has an inisider in Adobe, tell them they have dead links http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/521/cpsid_52132.html
[23:00] <chrisccoulson> right, just generating the tarball for xulrunner, then that's good to go
[23:00] <chrisccoulson> oh, i guess i should just reuse the firefox tarball
[23:01] <micahg> chrisccoulson: no, the tarballs are different
[23:01] <chrisccoulson> micahg - the only difference is the addition of abrowser-branding in firefox
[23:01] <chrisccoulson> i can just remove that and repack it
[23:01] <micahg> chrisccoulson: and the versioning of the inner tarball
[23:01] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i can change that to
[23:01] <chrisccoulson> **too
[23:07] <chrisccoulson> woah
[23:07] <chrisccoulson> amd64 build finished in 1 hour 5 minutes
[23:07] <chrisccoulson> including the testsuite!
[23:08] <chrisccoulson> impressive!
[23:08] <chrisccoulson> i thought it would be much longer than that
[23:08] <chrisccoulson> jdstrand, ^^
[23:08] <chrisccoulson> :)
[23:08] <jdstrand> \o/
[23:09] <chrisccoulson> that's quicker than usual isn't it? i'm sure we wait longer than that for 3.6 builds, wihtout the testsuite
[23:09] <jdstrand> I don't recall. amd64 was never to bad I don't think
[23:09] <jdstrand> s/to /too /
[23:11] <chrisccoulson> ah, ok. well, the testsuite doesn't seem to have extended the build time significantly
[23:12] <chrisccoulson> which is good :)
[23:14] <chrisccoulson> micahg - ok, XR is good to go too :)
[23:17] <chrisccoulson> right, uploading now
[23:29] <micahg> chrisccoulson: thanks, I'm hoping I can get back to the transition stuff soon
[23:29] <chrisccoulson> cool
[23:29] <chrisccoulson> we'll need to get xr-2.0 added to the packageset
[23:30] <chrisccoulson> although, not initially, as it will be in universe
[23:32] <micahg> chrisccoulson: right, since that's no longer an issue for me ;)