bdrungmicahg: do we want to open a xul-ext PPA? If yes, who should own it and how should it be called?11:08
cupi've come to the conclusion that 4.0 needs an address bar and search bar for the add-on bar. </xzibit>13:46
cupwhat say you, chris13:47
micahgbdrung: depends who you want to be able to upload to it15:21
micahgchrisccoulson: do you have an opinion on an extensions PPA?15:22
chrisccoulsonmicahg - i don't mind ;)15:22
bdrungmicahg: no-change backports from debian unstable (unless they need modifications to work in ubuntu).15:23
micahgchrisccoulson: under the mozillateam?15:23
bdrungmicahg: everything under the moz-ext hood should work without changes.15:23
chrisccoulsonmicahg - yeah, that's fine15:24
micahgbdrung: that ok with you?15:24
bdrungmicahg: yes15:24
bdrungmicahg: how should we call the ppa?15:25
micahgUnofficial Mozilla Extensions Repo15:25
bdrungok, xul-ext with the long title Unofficial Mozilla Extensions Repo15:25
bdrungmicahg: btw what's with the mozilla-extensions-dev team?15:26
micahgwell, it's still there, and it has a PPA15:26
micahgBut I see 4 people I don't know on there15:28
bdrungok, let's create ppa:mozillateam/xul-ext then15:28
bdrungmicahg: i have not the right to do it. therefore it's your task15:29
micahgbdrung: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/xul-ext15:31
micahgbdrung: where do you want bugs?15:32
bdrungmicahg: i recommend to use backportpackage for uploading.15:32
bdrungmicahg: good question. what do you think?15:33
micahgwell, we have the ubuntu-mozilla-ppa-bugs project15:33
micahgwe also have the mozilla-extensions project15:34
bdrungmicahg: which do you prefer?15:40
micahgbdrung: I don't mind either way, but if we do the ppa-bugs project, I have to add you as a bug supervisor15:41
bdrungmicahg: how high is the traffic there?15:41
micahgnot very, a few bugs a week15:42
bdrungmicahg: then we can do that15:42
bdrungmicahg: first two package are uploaded. let's upload only to natty and newer.15:43
micahgbdrung: ok, makes sense since that's 4.0 ATM, we'll probably backport 4.next to the stable releases15:43
ftajorge always blogging about chrome..18:13
ftaoh damn, i messed up my rss feed :(18:14
AnAntHello, please have a look at this FTBFS http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62678278/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-powerpc.chmsee_1.3.0-1ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz , why isn't libnspr4-dev being pulled as in other archs ?18:35
micahgAnAnt: it should have an explicit build-depends on it18:37
AnAntmicahg: it works fine on Debian & Ubuntu for several cycles18:38
micahgAnAnt: DSO linking has changed18:38
AnAntmicahg: actually xulrunner1.9.2-dev does depend on libnspr4-dev18:38
AnAntDSO ?18:38
micahgAnAnt: we actually need this ported to xulrunner-2.018:39
AnAntyou mean chmsee to be ported to xulrunner 2 ?18:40
AnAnterm, dunno if it would work18:40
micahgwe need to make it work, xulrunner-1.9.2 will be dropped before release :)18:40
micahganyways, powerpc seems very finicky these days18:41
AnAntmicahg: indeed18:41
AnAntmicahg: binutils, verilator and now this18:41
micahgFirefox and xulrunner also failed18:41
AnAntmicahg: so, for xulrunner 2 thing, I should just change the build dep to xulrunner-dev >= 2 ?18:42
micahgno, you can just build-dep on xulrunner-dev (2.0 is the default) and see what fails, of you have to make changes that'll break with 1.9.2, then yes, make 2.0 explicit18:43
AnAntmicahg: ok, so it does work18:43
AnAntmicahg: at least the amd64 build is successful18:44
micahgcool, it could've been a sync then :)18:44
AnAntyes, indeed !18:44
micahgAnAnt: feel free to reupload w/the Ubuntu specific change reverted18:45
micahgAnAnt: just make sure chmsee has a binary depends on xulrunner-2.0 (lesspipe can check that)18:45
AnAntmicahg: according to buildlog it does18:46
AnAntbut I'm not adding nspr4-dev, I prefer to let it be done on Debian first18:49
micahgAnAnt: oh, hmm, it's pulled in on Debian18:50
micahgAnAnt: you can add it and then use submittodebian18:51
micahghmm, it's pulled in on ubuntu as well18:52
* micahg is quite confused18:53
AnAntmicahg: I am reading the DSOLinking wiki doc, so xulrunner-dev actually won't depend on nspr-dev ?18:54
micahgit doesn't necessarily need it18:54
micahgah, I think b8 might have used an internal nspr and b9 was FTBFS18:55
AnAntI think we would wait until we find out if xulrunner-dev will actually depend on nspr-dev or not18:56
micahgAnAnt: it's not guaranteed, but we try18:56
micahgAnAnt: it should either have an explicit depends or be patched to use the xulrunner nspr pkg-config file19:01
micahgAnAnt: this actually doesn't directly have to do with the DSO linking, but rather with the principle of the matter19:03
AnAntplease explain what you mean by "principle of the matter"19:03
AnAntmicahg: ^19:06
micahgthe idea of not doing implicit linking is because it might not choose to link in the future and the package would be unbuildable, that's what happens in this case, xulrunner-dev might not depend on libnspr4-dev, so since chmsee needs it, it should explicitly depend on it19:06
AnAntso "it might not choose to link in the future" due to DSO linking, right ?19:13
AnAntmicahg: done & submitodebian'ed !19:20
micahgAnAnt: not due to, but similar to19:23
AnAntmicahg: btw, xulrunner 1.9.2 will still be needed for the java support19:32
micahgAnAnt: nope19:32
AnAntmicahg: that got fixed already ?19:33
micahgit just needs the headers, we'll figure that out one way or the otehr19:33
AnAntI just read Coulson's post now19:33
AnAntDebian removed xulrunner19:37
AnAntI mean the source package19:37
AnAntI think it is provided by iceweasel now19:38
ubot2Debian bug 594468 in ftp.debian.org "RM: xulrunner -- ROM; binary packages provided by other packages, now" [Normal,Open]19:38
micahgyeah, we did that a while back19:41
AnAntwell, got to leave, bye19:46
chrisccoulsonbdrung - do you work on swt-gtk at all?20:57
bdrungchrisccoulson: no22:04
magciusmicahg, did you fix the patch for FF4?23:07
micahgmagcius: please refresh my memory23:17
magciusmicahg, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/firefox/firefox-trunk.head.daily/view/head:/debian/patches/firefox-profilename23:17
micahgah, the Firefox-4.0 in the useragent? not eyt23:18
magciusmicahg, no, the patch fails to apply elsewhere23:19
magciusWait, hold on23:21
magciusI'm confused, looks like the package started building again23:21
magciuser, or now23:22
magciusor ont23:22
magciussee http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62659322/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-amd64.firefox-4.0_4.0~b10~hg20110122r61143%2Bnobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1~maverick_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz23:22
micahgyeah, the dailies are slightly broke AT23:24

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!