[00:14] <fta> oh, ok
[00:14] <fta> micahg, do you know why we are short of builders once again?
[00:15] <fta> i386	8	 149 jobs (5 hours 10 minutes)
[00:15] <micahg> not at the moment, not aware of anything going on
[01:36] <fta> dh_scour?? what's that?
[01:40] <micahg> fta: it reduces the size of svgs in .debs
[01:41] <fta> yep, i noticed
[01:41] <fta> i just have 1 svg in chromium:  Original file size: 30015 bytes; new file size: 20177 bytes (67.22%)
[01:41] <micahg> it's part of the goal of reducing the CD size
[01:41] <micahg> or rather making sure the install can fit on a CD :)
[01:42] <fta> yep, i just read that https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PaulSladen/LangpackCompression
[01:43] <fta> not much for me in there, i'm already aggressively using lzma wherever i can
[01:43] <fta> thunderbird is in the CD?? i thought it was evolution
[01:43] <micahg> that's a real old list :)
[01:44] <micahg> it's on xubuntu
[01:44] <micahg> and maybe for 11.10 :)
[01:44] <fta> oh, it's a 2y+ old page
[01:44] <fta> sorry
[01:45] <micahg> you have the blueprint?
[01:45] <fta> yep, https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint
[01:47] <fta> i guess i can pre-scour my svg to save 10k :)
[01:48] <micahg> fta: no, better not, the idea is to keep the full version in the source and the reduced version in the deb in case people want to modify it
[02:58] <aisourph> I want Firefox 4.x (from an actual repo) but the released Thunderbird version (my web browser has no real state but my mail client rather does). Does Ubuntu provide a supported way to accomplish this?
[02:58] <aisourph> Currently /etc/apt/preferences looks like the most likely candidate but...
[02:58] <aisourph> http://pastebin.com/T85GRUjY
[02:59] <micahg> aisourph: there's a PPA listed in /topic and on that page are instructions for adding the reo
[02:59] <micahg> repo
[02:59] <micahg> that's the beta PPA
[03:00] <aisourph> Ah, that looks much better
[03:00] <aisourph> Sidesteps the preference-setting issue
[03:00] <micahg> aisourph: yeah, and the beta version is installable along side the stable one
[03:01] <aisourph> Odd, I spent a lot of time Googling/etc and just kept coming across the nightly PPA, which is why this issue appeared
[03:01] <aisourph> never found your PPA releases (I assume Micah Gersten == micahg)
[03:02] <micahg> aisourph: it's the team PPA, but yes
[03:02] <aisourph> yeah that's why I phrased it as your releases, not your PPA....
[03:03] <aisourph> also I was more interested in the betas than the nightlies anyway, so that repo is also better in that regard
[03:04] <micahg> yeah, I'd prefer to run that, but beta 7 was a bust for me, I'm hoping beta 8 is more stable
[03:05] <aisourph> the nightlies just shifted from pre-beta8 to pre-beta9 so I assume beta8 branched within the last couple of days
[03:06] <micahg> aisourph: yes
[03:07] <aisourph> also, planet.mozilla.org had them planning on releasing it December 8 before (obviously they didn't) and get an RC out in January so they're clearly aiming to release soon.
[03:08] <micahg> yeah, RC probably won't be till Feb, beta 8 by next week maybe
[03:12] <aisourph> also is your beta7 issue probably something specific to you? I mean I'll test it anyway but it'd be nice to know what sort of breakage to look for
[03:16]  * micahg isn't sure could be profile related
[03:29] <aisourph> ah, well, works so far. and unlike the nightly the various addon icons (ABP, noscript, and that bookmarks toolbar icon) have reappeared
[03:30] <aisourph> and I can re-enable the addon compatibility checking (since it's not some pre-beta9. and I didn't understand that anyway, since they said beta7 would get the plugin API stable, so why mark anything that works in beta7 as not working automatically in pre-beta9?)
[03:54] <micahg> aisourph: that's just how AMO works
[03:55] <micahg> aisourph: scratch that, they just mark it with the highest tested version
[03:59] <aisourph> but it was apparently okay with pre-beta8; is that considered == beta 7 or is there some ordering beta7 < prebeta 8 < beta8 < prebeta9 < beta9 where the addon maintainer notes the last one tested within that? It can't be as simple as 'last tested as of beta X' because of the first part and given how they end up branching things to stabilize each release tree there's only a DAG not some total ordering
[04:00] <micahg> most addons were probably made compatible with beta 8
[09:09] <freeflying> is there any admin to ml?
[10:26] <fta> dpm, hi, i have a problem with new langs
[10:26] <fta> dpm, yesterday, i landed a patch to auto-land them: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/translations/trunk/patches/build.patch.txt
[10:27] <fta> dpm, but it's not that easy, i have to also create other files for each lang, like this one: http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/app/resources/locale_settings_fr.xtb
[10:38] <dpm> hi fta, so you mean that you need more info than the one you can get from LP to generate a new language for Chromium?
[10:38] <fta> dpm, correct.
[10:38] <dpm> and that that info cannot be easily guessed
[10:39] <fta> dpm, no. http://paste.ubuntu.com/544378/  like UI sizes
[10:40] <dpm> fta, hm, perhaps we should prepare a wiki page with the instructions for new languages somewhere, and then send an e-mail to launchpad-translators with a heads up. What do you think?
[10:41] <dpm> Is the locale_settings_ll.xtb file the only one that needs to be present?
[10:42] <fta> dpm, i'm not sure yet, it's the 1st that popped up this morning. i knew this template but i thought grit would be smart enough to get a default somehow,  but apparently not: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/60728211/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-i386.chromium-browser_10.0.613.0~svn20101216r69363-0ubuntu1~ucd1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[10:45] <fta> dpm, http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/app/resources/locale_settings.grd
[10:46] <dpm> looking...
[10:47] <fta> dpm, and it's a slightly different syntax compared to the other grd i'm already converting. (the heavy use of xml comments instead of desc="" attributes)
[10:48] <fta> dpm, oh, this grd claims '<messages fallback_to_english="true">', but it obviously doesn't completely
[10:48] <fta> dpm, maybe i can just land empty xtb in the meantime
[10:49] <fta> dpm, we should find a way to expose those to tech oriented translators
[10:49] <dpm> fta, I'm lacking a bit of context, first, what's the locale_settings.grd file?
[10:50] <dpm> fta, and how would empty xtb's help as a temporary workaround?
[10:50] <fta> dpm, all the tiny prefs (like encoding, dialog sizes) that depends on the lang, like strings may be longer or shorter, having an impact of UI organization
[10:52] <fta> dpm, it should prevent the build system from failing when creating the langpack (.pak files), and let grit do its fallback to english until we figure out how to fix that for good
[10:52] <dpm> fta, yeah, I saw that in the xtb file, but got confused by the .grd one. So the .grd file is like the master translation template, that generates .xtb files for each locale?
[10:53] <fta> dpm, grd/pot, xtb/po
[10:53] <dpm> fta, thanks. Yeah, I just wasn't thinking of the locale_settings file in terms of a translation
[10:54] <fta> dpm, there's nothing to translate in there, in fact, google doesn't even expose this template to its translators, it's all populated by the devs
[10:54] <dpm> fta, so considering that we could use the same machinery, I think your suggestion of exposing it would be a good idea. We could just pretend it's an additional template. But we'd need to have good translator comments there
[10:55] <dpm> i.e. we could expose it in LP as an additional template
[10:55] <fta> dpm, but how am i supposed to populate all that just by myself, when i don't even know how it should look like
[10:56] <fta> dpm, yep, i'll back out my patch for now and discuss with upstream. i'd like them to use the same syntax for the grd
[10:57] <fta> dpm, but a wiki page would be nice explaining what is what in each template
[10:57] <dpm> fta, we'd leave translators to complete it. And perhaps when auto-landing new languages they should not be used (i.e. use an empty .xtb) until the locale_settings_ll file is completely translated
[10:58] <dpm> fta, do you know if the chromium people have got a wiki? I don't want to put it in the Ubuntu wiki unless we can find somewhere else in a more independent location to put it
[10:59] <fta> dpm, they have one. http://code.google.com/p/chromium/w/list   i can edit everything in there
[11:01] <dpm> fta, ah, that'd be a good place if you want to start. I'd be happy to help with that, I'm just not sure how to get edit permission
[11:03] <dpm> anyway, I need to step out for a bit now, will read the log later
[11:03] <fta> dpm, ok, i'll start something later today
[11:10] <fta> oh my, those new xtb use a different id for all strings, my converter won't work on those
[11:13] <fta> d'oh! locale_settings_cros.grd  locale_settings.grd  locale_settings_linux.grd  locale_settings_mac.grd  locale_settings_win.grd
[16:08] <fta> dpm, i see only a dozen of langs moving on lp, how is that supposed to work to have more? should we give milestones/deadlines? or is the current way the best we can have?
[16:10] <fta> dpm, (no offense intended, it's my first time working with the ubuntu translators, i'm still trying to learn how it works)
[16:11] <fta> oh.. "chromium linux/beta (8.0.552.224 -> 9.0.597.19)"
[17:15] <dpm> hi fta, sorry, I was doing a videocast. Let me figure something out and we'll talk about it tomorrow, as I need to step out. heh, feel free to ask anything, there is no way I could have taken that as an offence :-)
[23:34] <magcius> Did the nightly for 4.0b9pre break Flash?
[23:34] <micahg> idk
[23:35] <micahg> haven't upgrade to last nights version yet
[23:35] <magcius> it doesn't even recognize flash player in about:plugins
[23:35] <magcius> where should it be searching?
[23:35] <jewsucanuse> hey chrisccoulson, i'm not sure what to file this bug against. dragged links aren't antialiased.
[23:35] <magcius> I have no idea what flashplugin-alternative.so is doing
[23:37] <micahg> magcius: are you using adobe flash?
[23:39] <magcius> micahg, yepo
[23:40]  * micahg will try latest after update finished
[23:40] <micahg> *finishes
[23:42] <magcius> I don't have any package that owns flashplugin-alternative.so
[23:42] <magcius> what creates is
[23:43] <micahg> magcius: flashplugin-installer should I think
[23:46] <micahg> magcius: wfm
[23:48] <magcius> micahg, huh, ok
[23:48] <magcius> micahg, do you have /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so?
[23:49] <micahg> nope
[23:50] <micahg> I have flashplugin-alternative.so
[23:50] <micahg> I'm using flashplugin-installer
[23:51] <magcius> same here
[23:51] <micahg> that's not in maverick anywhere
[23:51] <magcius> can you try nspluginplayer type=flash
[23:52] <magcius> does it error out?
[23:52] <micahg> yes
[23:52] <magcius> uhh,ok
[23:55] <magcius> so not sure what caused it but reconfiguring flashplugin-installer fixed it