[09:26] <fta> jdstrand, mdeslaur: hi, imminent security + major update of chromium (~16 bugs fixed, most high, a few about webkit)
[09:33] <fta> jdstrand, mdeslaur: most probably tomorrow. that's also the long expected v7->v8 upgrade
[11:01] <dpm> hi fta, I've just sent you an e-mail with the chromium translations announcement for your review. Let me know what you think when you have the chance to look at it.
[11:25] <dpm> fta, another thing we can easily do in LP is to order templates by priority. Is the list at https://translations.launchpad.net/chromium-browser/translations/+lang/ca already according to the priority of templates, or shall we move some to the top?
[11:28] <fta> dpm, hi, answered
[11:29] <fta> i'm aware of the priorities, i already set them a while ago, i'll update that asap
[11:30] <fta> also, if you remember, the inspector is not translated at all by upstream. i get it a try yesterday using the spanish translations, which are supposed to be complete
[11:30] <fta> http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/translated-inspector.png
[11:31] <fta> it's 1/2 spanish, 1/2 english
[11:31] <fta> i've investigated and the template is incomplete
[11:32] <fta> 170 strings instead of the ~300 used by inspector
[11:32] <fta> i'll work with upstream to get that fixed, in the meantime, i'll keep that thing disabled in the builds, but we can still continue to collect the translations
[11:32] <fta> dpm, ^^
[11:33] <dpm> fta, ack (reading your reply now)
[11:38] <dpm> fta, quick question: we're only showing the chromium strings for translation. If someone wants to start with a new language not yet upstream, will he be able to have all the UI translated through the templates we've got in LP? Or will he be missing some strings that might be shared with chrome and not be in the currently visible templates?
[11:41] <fta> dpm, it should work. for the 2 *chrom*-strings templates (one of which i now dropped), chromium 1st looks in chromium-strings, and falls back to google-chrome-strings
[11:41] <dpm> fta, great, thanks
[11:43] <fta> dpm, if it's a totally new lang, i'll have to patch the build system to generate the corresponding lang pack and add it to the deb. it's easy, but it's not something my converter does automatically (maybe it will later)
[11:44] <fta> it's a matter of patching the gyp files (sort of autoconf files), while the convert deals with grit (grd and xtb files)
[11:45] <dpm> fta, right, I think for a start that's absolutely fine. We can tell translators who want to add a new language to simply give us a heads up.
[11:45] <fta> yep
[11:45] <dpm> or you'll probably notice it anyway
[11:45] <fta> dpm, i'll update the diagram just after lunch, please hold on until then
[11:46] <dpm> fta, yeah, sure. I read the comment on your reply. Thanks.
[11:52]  * dpm lunches
[11:52] <fta> damn, i can't use pencil with firefox 4. it's for 3.6
[11:53] <fta> and it doesn't even appear in the list
[11:58] <fta> patched the xpi, it worked \o/
[11:58] <sebner> hi, since yesterday evening youtube videos don't start anymore (loading loading loading), didn't change anything but on a fresh profile it still works + on another browser too. Any idea? (natty)
[12:06] <fta> adblock?
[12:15] <sebner> fta: I see the youtube video. It's just stuck at loading
[12:16] <fta> oh, no idea then. i know that in chromium, adblock prevents some videos from loading
[12:16] <sebner> hmm, I'll investigage
[12:16] <sebner> *gate
[13:00] <Dimmuxx> I found a video that played in chromium but not in firefox. Both are using adblock and the same blocklists. Disabling adblock in firefox fixed it though but strange because it used to be the other way around
[13:04] <fta> i don't know for ff, but for chromium, the adblock extension has an option to block ads in youtube's videos, which often causes that video not to load
[13:07] <Dimmuxx> yeah chromium seems to have a hard time blocking ads on youtube, that's why it was so strange that it was the other way around on another site
[13:08] <Dimmuxx> especially since it's the same block list
[13:47] <jdstrand> fta: hi. can you make packages available for lucid and maverick like last time (whenever it's convenient)
[13:47] <fta> jdstrand, sure
[13:48] <jdstrand> thanks
[14:57] <BUGabundo> any one HELP
[14:57] <BUGabundo> help me save my mind
[14:58] <BUGabundo> I need my precious FF3.6 working
[14:58] <BUGabundo> it keeps crashing on any link you click
[14:58] <BUGabundo> the patch is yet to be backported from 4.0
[15:23] <fta> dpm, http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/chromium-translations-v2.png   that's the full picture. please tell me if it's still understandable..
[15:29] <BUGabundo> I wonder if I downgrade to maverick pocket it will fix it :S
[15:29] <fta> BUGabundo, in natty, 3.6 is gone
[15:30] <BUGabundo> I know
[15:30] <BUGabundo> I've pinned my down
[15:31] <fta> why?
[15:32] <fta> well, ask chrisccoulson ^^
[15:33] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, it doesn't crash here, and i've got no idea what patch you're talking about. there have been hundreds of commits since b7
[15:33] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: I've filed it on mozilla
[15:34] <BUGabundo> let me see if I have it here
[15:36] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583582
[15:36] <BUGabundo> I think
[15:36] <ubot2> Mozilla bug 583582 in Spelling checker "hunspell double buffer w/gcc-4.5*" [Normal,Resolved: fixed]
[15:36] <BUGabundo> --- Comment #22 from Ryan VanderMeulen <ryanvm@gmail.com> 2010-11-10 15:51:22 PST ---
[15:36] <BUGabundo> This hasn't been fixed on the 3.6.x branch yet. When the 3.6 branch patch in bug 579649 gets approved and checked in, it will bring the fix for this bug with it.
[15:36] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 579649 in magentoerpconnect "Error Installing Conector Magento - KeyError: 'exportable' (affects: 2) (heat: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/579649
[15:38] <BUGabundo> downgrading to MM deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa/ubuntu maverick main #mozilla
[15:38] <BUGabundo> specially since natty defaults to FF and I can't use it :(
[15:40] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: is you need new logs just say so. for me its as easy as to open any of the links I just posted
[15:43] <BUGabundo> damn it
[15:43] <BUGabundo> I can't downgrade, cause it says the package is broken
[15:45] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, i take it that the nightlies don't crash then?
[15:47] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: the one I have, and several I had before , do
[15:47] <BUGabundo>   Installed: 3.6.13~hg20101116r34737+nobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1
[15:47] <chrisccoulson> the 4.0 nightly?
[15:47] <BUGabundo> no, 3.6
[15:47] <fta> "Resolved: fixed" means our dailies (4.0) must have it
[15:48] <BUGabundo> (2010-12-01 15:36:46) freenode: This hasn't been fixed on the 3.6.x branch yet.
[15:48] <chrisccoulson> yeah, they will have had it for some time now
[15:48] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, it's been committed to m-c since nov 05, which means it's in our 4.0 dailies
[15:48] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: I can't use ff4
[15:49] <BUGabundo> it doesn't work with half the plugins I use
[15:49] <BUGabundo> until that's fixed, I'm stuck with 3.6
[15:49] <BUGabundo> can't I have a working 3.6 ff ?
[15:49] <chrisccoulson> not really, we're not investing any time in 3.6 for natty
[15:50] <BUGabundo> ok, and for maverick?
[15:50] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, on maverick it is build with gcc-4.4
[15:50] <chrisccoulson> so it shouldn't have the problem
[15:50] <BUGabundo> grrr
[15:50] <chrisccoulson> the bug makes it clear it is specific to gcc-4.5
[15:51] <BUGabundo> I can't downgrade gcc in naty. would brake half the OS
[15:51] <BUGabundo> :(
[15:51] <chrisccoulson> you don't need to
[15:51] <chrisccoulson> just install the maverick build of firefox
[15:51] <BUGabundo> I'm trying
[15:51] <BUGabundo> using the PPA version
[15:51] <BUGabundo> but synaptics complains its broken
[16:04] <Dimmuxx> anyone else experience problems with nightly 4.0 builds not quitting as it should?
[16:05] <Dimmuxx> I have to kill firefox everytime with kill
[16:06] <BUGabundo> that's flash
[16:11] <Dimmuxx> oh good it's not just me then
[16:55] <fta> dpm, ping
[16:55] <dpm> fta, pong. Sorry, I had a look at your diagram, but I then went into a call
[16:58] <dpm> fta, as per feedback, the diagram looks great, I've only got "cosmetic" feedback. If you've got time I'd suggest to straighten up the arrows, i.e. make them truly horizontal or vertical. Now they are all at "less than vertical" or "less than horizontal" angles. That's just me being picky, so I'll leave it up to you
[17:02] <fta> ok, i don't mind.
[17:09] <fta> dpm, seems i can't make vertical arrows. because of pencil
[17:14] <dpm> fta, ok, no worries
[17:16] <dpm> fta, what do you think about my question on the last reply to the announcement e-mail? Have you had a chance to look into that? Once we've clarified that I'll just re-send the e-mail CC'ing Evan for review and after his reply we should be good to go.
[17:17] <chrisccoulson> heh, i've won! my daughter can no longer climb the stairs :)
[17:21] <fta> dpm, read it. my point is that it seems you start by claiming we are hosting the official translations for chromium, which is not the case (the "official" part)
[17:23] <fta> dpm, also chromium is not "the Google Open Source browser". it's the open source browser on top of which Google Chrome is built.
[17:25] <dpm> fta, yeah, I understood your reply. My question was that it was what I understood after Evan first approached us to use Launchpad for translations, as they had no infrastructure to host them. I understood as well that translation patches would be accepted upstream, so that in the end all distros would benefit from them
[17:26] <dpm> it's just what I'm trying to clarify before making any announcements, I'm happy to change anything
[17:26] <dpm> on the draft, I mean
[17:27] <fta> dpm, Evan said he will land some of our strings in trunk, but that the google chrome release manager *may* never merge them in the release branches
[17:28] <fta> i guess it depends if we can prove we're providing quality work
[17:29] <dpm> fta, I'm not familiar with the chrome/chromium development workflow. I thought that translation patches would not be used in Chrome, but they would in Chromium
[17:30] <dpm> s/used/accepted
[17:30] <fta> dpm, they all work in trunk, but only a small subset of the dev work on the 3 release branches (they cherry-pick or backport stuff from trunk)
[17:31] <fta> and there's a guy responsible for what's landing in those branches
[17:31] <dpm> fta, that's the part where I am confused. What are those branches, Chrome or Chromium?
[17:39] <fta> dpm, well, that's expected as it's confusing for everyone :) the public branches are enough to build chromium releases, but there's no such things as official chromium releases, just google chrome releases. and those branches are not exactly what they use to build those official chrome binaries (they add some stuff we have no access to)
[17:40] <dpm> fta, so they just publish the branches, don't build binaries and let every distro just fetch that and build them themselves?
[17:41] <fta> dpm, correct. that's why there's no chromium for win and mac, just official chrome builds
[17:42] <dpm> fta, right, I think I'm starting to slowly get it :) Can you quickly remind me what are each of those public branches?
[17:43] <dpm> oh, wait, I can see them in your diagram
[17:43] <fta> dpm, dev, beta and stable. they call that "channels"
[17:43] <fta> dpm, and i have a ppa per channel: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/ppa-dashboard/chromium-daily.html
[17:46] <fta> dpm, http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/chromium-translations-v2.png  more aligned
[17:47] <dpm> fta, wow, nice :)
[17:47] <dpm> fta, thanks a lot for the clarification. So here's what I'll do later on today: 1) I'll rewrite the announcement and add your new diagram 2) Send a new e-mail to you and Evan for review, asking him again about what they want/can do with the translations
[17:47] <dpm> Sounds good?
[17:48] <fta> ok, good for me
[17:48] <fta> if you can, grab a copy of the diagram, i'm not sure its location will be stable enough for your blog
[17:49] <dpm> ok, will do that then
[17:49] <fta> i have a quota there
[17:50] <dpm> fta, ok last question: do you want me to CC anyone else on the e-mail, perhaps from some other distros if you've got contact with them?
[17:53] <fta> dpm, maybe some of those guys: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxChromiumPackages
[17:55] <dpm> fta, ok, thanks, perhaps I'll think about clarifying the usage of translations with Evan first and then sending them a quick heads up e-mail.
[17:57] <fta> ok
[17:59] <fta> dpm, also, one thing worth knowing: the last branch in my diagram doesn't exist yet. it's still just a bunch of folders/files in my people.u.c zone
[17:59]  * dpm looks at the diagram again...
[17:59] <fta> the step 5
[18:02] <dpm> ok, I see
[18:06] <dpm> fta, on the big block on the left, why does it say "fta's server"? The part I don't understand is that this seems to imply that your server contains the 3 + trunk upstream branches. Am I understanding this right?
[18:06] <fta> oh, silly me. i have the branch in step 4. just need to add the patches in there. I will update the diagram again
[18:06] <dpm> fta, no worries, just ping me when you update it and I'll fetch it
[18:06] <fta> yes, i have local copies of the upstream branches
[18:06] <dpm> ok, gotcha then
[18:07] <fta> but all that needs to be done somewhere, here, it's on my own hardware
[18:13] <fta> dpm, updated
[18:17] <dpm> fta, ... and fetched, thanks
[21:03] <micahg> maxb: BTW, we added mozjs back for natty, but you still need to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to use it
[21:03] <maxb> yuck
[21:03] <maxb> btw, I care about /usr/bin/js, not the library per se
[21:04] <micahg> maxb: oh, right...I don't think we're doing anything with that
[21:04] <micahg> sorry for the noise then
[22:28] <BUGabundo> I give up
[22:29] <BUGabundo> can't use it anymore
[22:29] <BUGabundo> purge ff 3.6
[22:29] <micahg> BUGabundo: what's broke?
[22:29] <BUGabundo> and install by hand
[22:29] <BUGabundo> from maverick ppa or something
[22:29] <BUGabundo> I rather have an non updated browser then one not working
[22:29] <micahg> BUGabundo: are you using firefox on Natty?
[22:29] <micahg> from the repo?
[22:29] <BUGabundo> yeah, 3.6 pinned down
[22:30] <BUGabundo> but will crash due to bug in GCC 4.5
[22:30] <micahg> BUGabundo: oh, from teh dailies?
[22:30] <BUGabundo> pull your scroll log up
[22:30] <micahg> BUGabundo: what does apt-cache policy firefox show?
[22:30] <BUGabundo> see the discussion with chrisccoulson
[22:30] <BUGabundo> micahg: its pinned down so wont upgrade to ff4
[22:30] <BUGabundo> I can't use ff4 yet
[22:31] <chrisccoulson> BUGabundo, if you're using the maverick build, it shouldn't crash. the maverick builds are all built with gcc 4.4
[22:31] <BUGabundo> I'll get them from https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa/+sourcepub/1380055/+listing-archive-extra and pray
[22:31] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: I'm on natty builds
[22:31] <BUGabundo> gonna try maverick now
[22:32] <micahg> BUGabundo: ah, ok, so what's the complaint?  if you set the PPA series to maverick in the sources.list file it should work
[22:32] <BUGabundo> for some stupid reason, with both PPAs, synaptic refuses to allow me to downgrade
[22:32] <BUGabundo> and my aptitude foo doesn't master diff PPAs yet
[22:32] <BUGabundo> micahg: so I would believe
[22:32] <BUGabundo> but it doesn't
[22:32] <chrisccoulson> i find it easier just to uninstall packages, add the old apt source and then re-install again
[22:33] <micahg> oh, because you have natty and maverick for the daily PPA
[22:33] <BUGabundo> chrisccoulson: prob is, I want FF4 from natty ppa
[22:33] <BUGabundo> micahg: correc
[22:33] <micahg> BUGabundo: add the ubuntu-mozilla-security PPA :)
[22:34] <BUGabundo> not a bad idea
[22:34] <micahg> BUGabundo: for maverick
[22:34] <BUGabundo> so ppa natty for ff4 and securtity for ff36
[22:34] <BUGabundo> nice reasosing
[22:35] <micahg> BUGabundo: it won't be bleeding edge 3.6, but it's prerelease and shouldn't confuse apt as much
[22:36] <BUGabundo> micahg: right now, I don't care about bleading edge
[22:36] <BUGabundo> I just need something that works
[22:36] <BUGabundo> which current version doesn't
[22:36] <micahg> BUGabundo: what's broke WRT 4.0? are there bugs already?
[22:36] <BUGabundo> AND to make stuff worse, natty lost Prefered apps, and it always opens ff3.6
[22:36] <BUGabundo> WRT?
[22:37] <micahg> BUGabundo: with regard to
[22:37] <BUGabundo> gcc4.5
[22:37] <BUGabundo> now fixed in trunk
[22:37] <micahg> BUGabundo: no, I mean what's wrong with the version in natty
[22:38] <BUGabundo> micahg: its gcc... it would make both ff3.6 and 4.0 crash
[22:38] <BUGabundo> but ff4 is fixed, and 3.6 not backported
[22:39] <micahg> BUGabundo: right, so, now that it's fixed, why can't you use 4.0?
[22:39] <BUGabundo> micahg: half my addons not ported to ff4 yet
[22:39] <micahg> BUGabundo: ah
[22:40]  * micahg hopes 4.0 is released before beta :)
[22:41] <BUGabundo> $ apt-cache policy firefox | pastebinit
[22:41] <BUGabundo> http://paste.ubuntu.com/538837/
[22:41] <BUGabundo> what a mess lol
[22:41] <BUGabundo> my locally installed version is higher then the security ppa ehe
[22:42] <BUGabundo> how was that trick to pin a package to a certain ppa ?
[22:43] <micahg> BUGabundo: this might work: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/538838/
[22:43] <BUGabundo> don't think so
[22:43] <BUGabundo> would affect ff4 too
[22:43] <micahg> BUGabundo: ff4 isn't in that PPA ;)
[22:44] <BUGabundo> humm
[22:44] <BUGabundo> I can try it
[22:44] <micahg> BUGabundo: you can just run sudo apt-get update && apt-cache policy firefox after adding that
[22:46] <BUGabundo> and that goes where? recall me, please
[22:46] <micahg> BUGabundo: /etc/apt/preferences
[22:47] <BUGabundo> /etc/apt/preferences.d/ ?
[22:47] <BUGabundo> or make a new file?
[22:47] <micahg> BUGabundo: up to you, idr the name scheme for the .d dir offhand
[22:49] <BUGabundo> micahg: didn't work $ apt-cache policy firefox | pastebinit
[22:49] <BUGabundo> http://paste.ubuntu.com/538840/
[22:49] <BUGabundo>   Candidate: 4.0~b7+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
[22:50] <micahg> BUGabundo: what does apt-cache policy | grep mozilla-security show?
[22:50] <BUGabundo>  500 http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-security/ppa/ubuntu/ maverick/main amd64 Packages
[22:50] <micahg> BUGabundo: maybe make Package: be * instead of firefox*
[22:51] <BUGabundo> updating
[22:51] <BUGabundo>   Candidate: 4.0~b7+nobinonly-0ubuntu3
[22:51] <BUGabundo> FAIL
[22:51] <micahg> :(
[22:51] <micahg> BUGabundo: did you put it in /etc/apt/preferences?
[22:51] <BUGabundo> I never managed to get PINs to work with PPAs
[22:51] <BUGabundo> micahg: yes
[22:51]  * micahg is having great success
[22:52] <BUGabundo> Package: *
[22:52] <BUGabundo> Pin: release o=LP-PPA-ubuntu-mozilla-security
[22:52] <BUGabundo> Pin-Priority: 999
[22:52] <micahg> BUGabundo: does apt-cache policy firefox show 999 for mozilla-security version now?
[22:53] <BUGabundo> http://paste.ubuntu.com/538842/
[22:53] <micahg> hmm, it's not catching it, weird
[22:53] <BUGabundo> $ sudo aptitude hold firefox firefox-branding firefox-gnome-support
[22:53] <BUGabundo> will work :P
[22:53] <micahg> apt-cache policy | grep mozilla-security still at 500 also?
[22:54] <BUGabundo> now the most important part: to test to see if it crashes or not
[22:54] <BUGabundo> eheh
[22:54] <BUGabundo>  500 http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-security/ppa/ubuntu/ maverick/main amd64 Packages
[22:54] <micahg> foo, WFM, maybe apt is broke in natty :P
[22:54] <micahg> 501 http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-security/ppa/ubuntu/ maverick/main amd64 Packages
[22:55] <BUGabundo> yep, its NOT crashing!!!!
[22:55] <BUGabundo> what I suffered for weeks!
[22:55] <micahg> BUGabundo: maybe just 501 will work?
[22:55] <BUGabundo> damn you firefox + gcc
[22:57] <BUGabundo> nopoe
[22:57] <BUGabundo> *nope
[22:57] <micahg> BUGabundo: what about 1005?
[22:57]  * micahg forgot the ranges
[22:58] <BUGabundo> lol
[22:59] <BUGabundo> its not an exact science
[22:59] <micahg> BUGabundo: no, it is, I just don't remember all the ranges
[23:15] <Dimmuxx>