[11:55] <profus2> hi everybody
[11:57] <profus2> need help with thunderbird lightning
[11:57] <profus2> tried to import calendars, but they are integrated in "private calender", instead of being shown separately
[16:24] <fta> chrisccoulson, hi, why did you rename nss?
[16:25] <chrisccoulson> fta - the previous package name was versioned, despite us not shipping versioned so's for ages now
[16:26] <chrisccoulson> there's still a versioned transitional package for debian compatibility though
[16:26] <chrisccoulson> did that cause you any problems?
[16:26] <fta> it was one of the reason for all the hold upgrades today
[16:26] <fta> libindicator is another one
[16:26] <chrisccoulson> oh, interesting.
[16:27] <chrisccoulson> yeah, libindicator is probably expected as we're part way through a transition
[16:27] <fta> lots of stuff still not upgradeable
[16:27] <chrisccoulson> why did nss get held though? did it want to remove any packages?
[16:27] <fta> The following packages have been kept back:
[16:27] <fta>   compiz compiz-core compiz-fusion-plugins-main compiz-gnome compiz-plugins devhelp-common empathy empathy-common gimp indicator-datetime libappindicator1 libcompizconfig0
[16:27] <fta>   libdevhelp-2-1 nautilus-sendto-empathy python-appindicator python-webkit rhythmbox rhythmbox-dbg rhythmbox-plugin-cdrecorder rhythmbox-plugins shotwell yelp
[16:27] <fta> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 22 not upgraded.
[16:27] <fta> chromium held because of nss
[16:28] <chrisccoulson> just because it wanted to install a new package or because it conflicted with another one?
[16:28] <chrisccoulson> how did you upgrade?
[16:28] <fta> it just needed the new nss
[16:29] <fta> so no worries
[16:29] <fta> those are more disturbing: http://paste.ubuntu.com/554067/
[16:30] <chrisccoulson> yeah, those are being worked on this morning. ken, seb and didrocks worked quite late last night but didn't get the transition finished
[16:31] <fta> i can see that :) http://paste.ubuntu.com/554074/
[17:03] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: did something change about the extension policy? adblock-plus and co were removed.
[17:04] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, ask pitti ;)
[17:04] <chrisccoulson> seriously though, we sat down yesterday and came to the conclusion that there's no real reason for any of them to be in the archive
[17:04] <chrisccoulson> it's easier to just use the addons manager for those
[17:04] <chrisccoulson> the only ones that should be in the archive are ones that users can't easily install any other way (ie, they need compiling, etc)
[17:06] <bdrung> i disagree. there are other benefits for having stuff in the archive
[17:07] <chrisccoulson> like what?
[17:07] <bdrung> system wide installation of extensions.
[17:08] <micahg> I've toyed with the idea of an extensions PPA, but keeping them in the archive is a lot of overhead with Major version updates
[17:08] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure that's a big enough advantage to justify having them around, and the user experience for system-wide extensions is going to suck really soon
[17:08] <bdrung> the guarantee that the extension is FLOSS
[17:09] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: what happens to the system wide extensions?
[17:10] <chrisccoulson> bdrung, system-wide extensions are often abused by ISV's on other platforms to install extensions without users consent and without an obvious way for users to uninstall them again
[17:11] <chrisccoulson> i think that the current plan for firefox 4 is to disable all system-wide extensions on upgrade, and present a dialog to the user asking them which ones they want to re-enable
[17:11] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: we are not "other" platforms ;)
[17:12] <chrisccoulson> well, it doesn't matter. the same will still apply if ISV's ship extensions which break firefox (or kill performance) with their applications
[17:12] <chrisccoulson> the only supported way to install extensions is via the addons manager
[17:14] <chrisccoulson> bdrung - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=596343
[17:14] <ubot2> Mozilla bug 596343 in General "Users should have exclusive control over selecting their add-ons" [Normal,New]
[17:14] <bdrung> FF is heading in the wrong direction
[17:14] <chrisccoulson> although, i've not been reading the most recent comments
[17:14] <chrisccoulson> why do you think that?
[17:15] <bdrung> their update model
[17:16] <chrisccoulson> what's wrong with that?
[17:16] <bdrung> and i don't like that their use their own updater instead of relying on the distribution package system
[17:16] <bdrung> their update model is the reason for dropping all extensions from the archive
[17:18] <chrisccoulson> well, mozilla is competing in a highly competitive market. if they want to attract new users and keep existing ones, then they need to get features to users as quickly as possible
[17:18] <chrisccoulson> if you want to use a browser that isn't updated as often, then perhaps you should pick one that doesn't go anywhere and has hardly any users, like epiphany ;)
[17:18] <micahg> bdrung: no, we still use the distro packaging to upgrade, but we need to do Major updates as we can't backport security patches
[17:18] <mdeslaur> there's a definite security advantage to not having the extensions in the archive
[17:19] <chrisccoulson> yes :)
[17:19] <bdrung> micahg: i was referring to the extensions
[17:21] <bdrung> mdeslaur: really? now i have to trust all extension writers (of the installed extensions), the mozilla extension archive and the ubuntu archive.
[17:22] <mdeslaur> bdrung: extensions in universe that have security issues are being neglected. I much rather have people getting security updates for them directly from the mozilla extension archive rather than use an outdated version with security issues.
[17:22] <mdeslaur> bdrung: your opinion may differ
[22:33] <BUGabundo> evening folks
[22:34] <gnomefreak> BUGabundo: any idea what this translate to in English "je suis libre et cous"  not sure what lang. that is
[22:34] <gnomefreak> damn
[22:34] <gnomefreak> let me try that again
[22:34] <BUGabundo> french
[22:34] <gnomefreak> "je suis libre et vous"
[22:34] <BUGabundo> I'm free something
[22:34] <BUGabundo> I'm free "and so are you" ?
[22:35] <mdeslaur> I am free, are you?
[22:36] <gnomefreak> works for me :) i cant work on that now but at least you were able to tell me the lang. its on a background i have and some day i will translate it, thanks both of you
[22:36] <BUGabundo> ehe he missed the question mark :)
[22:45] <fta> gnomefreak, "libre" in this sentence could mean both free (as in doing nothing at the moment) and available (as in not seeing anyone)
[22:46] <fta> gnomefreak, and that's french. the "vous" means it's polite, or shy