[11:08] <bdrung> micahg: do we want to open a xul-ext PPA? If yes, who should own it and how should it be called?
[12:44] <cup> yo
[13:46] <cup> i've come to the conclusion that 4.0 needs an address bar and search bar for the add-on bar. </xzibit>
[13:47] <cup> what say you, chris
[14:58] <BUGabundo> o/
[15:21] <micahg> bdrung: depends who you want to be able to upload to it
[15:22] <micahg> chrisccoulson: do you have an opinion on an extensions PPA?
[15:22] <chrisccoulson> micahg - i don't mind ;)
[15:23] <bdrung> micahg: no-change backports from debian unstable (unless they need modifications to work in ubuntu).
[15:23] <micahg> chrisccoulson: under the mozillateam?
[15:23] <bdrung> micahg: everything under the moz-ext hood should work without changes.
[15:24] <chrisccoulson> micahg - yeah, that's fine
[15:24] <micahg> bdrung: that ok with you?
[15:24] <bdrung> micahg: yes
[15:25] <bdrung> micahg: how should we call the ppa?
[15:25] <micahg> xul-ext?
[15:25] <micahg> Unofficial Mozilla Extensions Repo
[15:25] <micahg> ?
[15:25] <bdrung> ok, xul-ext with the long title Unofficial Mozilla Extensions Repo
[15:26] <bdrung> micahg: btw what's with the mozilla-extensions-dev team?
[15:26] <micahg> well, it's still there, and it has a PPA
[15:28] <micahg> But I see 4 people I don't know on there
[15:28] <bdrung> ok, let's create ppa:mozillateam/xul-ext then
[15:29] <bdrung> micahg: i have not the right to do it. therefore it's your task
[15:31] <micahg> bdrung: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/xul-ext
[15:32] <micahg> bdrung: where do you want bugs?
[15:32] <bdrung> micahg: i recommend to use backportpackage for uploading.
[15:33] <bdrung> micahg: good question. what do you think?
[15:33] <micahg> well, we have the ubuntu-mozilla-ppa-bugs project
[15:34] <micahg> we also have the mozilla-extensions project
[15:40] <bdrung> micahg: which do you prefer?
[15:41] <micahg> bdrung: I don't mind either way, but if we do the ppa-bugs project, I have to add you as a bug supervisor
[15:41] <bdrung> micahg: how high is the traffic there?
[15:42] <micahg> not very, a few bugs a week
[15:42] <bdrung> micahg: then we can do that
[15:43] <bdrung> micahg: first two package are uploaded. let's upload only to natty and newer.
[15:43] <micahg> bdrung: ok, makes sense since that's 4.0 ATM, we'll probably backport 4.next to the stable releases
[18:12] <fta> *sad*
[18:13] <fta> jorge always blogging about chrome..
[18:14] <fta> oh damn, i messed up my rss feed :(
[18:35] <AnAnt> Hello, 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 ?
[18:37] <micahg> AnAnt: it should have an explicit build-depends on it
[18:38] <AnAnt> micahg: it works fine on Debian & Ubuntu for several cycles
[18:38] <micahg> AnAnt: DSO linking has changed
[18:38] <AnAnt> micahg: actually xulrunner1.9.2-dev does depend on libnspr4-dev
[18:38] <AnAnt> DSO ?
[18:38] <micahg> http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking
[18:39] <micahg> AnAnt: we actually need this ported to xulrunner-2.0
[18:40] <AnAnt> you mean chmsee to be ported to xulrunner 2 ?
[18:40] <micahg> yes
[18:40] <AnAnt> erm, dunno if it would work
[18:40] <micahg> we need to make it work, xulrunner-1.9.2 will be dropped before release :)
[18:41] <micahg> anyways, powerpc seems very finicky these days
[18:41] <AnAnt> micahg: indeed
[18:41] <AnAnt> micahg: binutils, verilator and now this
[18:41] <micahg> Firefox and xulrunner also failed
[18:42] <AnAnt> micahg: so, for xulrunner 2 thing, I should just change the build dep to xulrunner-dev >= 2 ?
[18:43] <micahg> no, 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 explicit
[18:43] <AnAnt> micahg: ok, so it does work
[18:44] <AnAnt> micahg: at least the amd64 build is successful
[18:44] <micahg> cool, it could've been a sync then :)
[18:44] <AnAnt> yes, indeed !
[18:45] <micahg> AnAnt: feel free to reupload w/the Ubuntu specific change reverted
[18:45] <micahg> AnAnt: just make sure chmsee has a binary depends on xulrunner-2.0 (lesspipe can check that)
[18:46] <AnAnt> micahg: according to buildlog it does
[18:46] <micahg> ok
[18:49] <AnAnt> but I'm not adding nspr4-dev, I prefer to let it be done on Debian first
[18:50] <micahg> AnAnt: oh, hmm, it's pulled in on Debian
[18:51] <micahg> AnAnt: you can add it and then use submittodebian
[18:52] <micahg> hmm, it's pulled in on ubuntu as well
[18:53]  * micahg is quite confused
[18:54] <AnAnt> micahg: I am reading the DSOLinking wiki doc, so xulrunner-dev actually won't depend on nspr-dev ?
[18:54] <micahg> it doesn't necessarily need it
[18:55] <micahg> ah, I think b8 might have used an internal nspr and b9 was FTBFS
[18:56] <AnAnt> I think we would wait until we find out if xulrunner-dev will actually depend on nspr-dev or not
[18:56] <micahg> AnAnt: it's not guaranteed, but we try
[19:01] <micahg> AnAnt: it should either have an explicit depends or be patched to use the xulrunner nspr pkg-config file
[19:03] <micahg> AnAnt: this actually doesn't directly have to do with the DSO linking, but rather with the principle of the matter
[19:03] <AnAnt> please explain what you mean by "principle of the matter"
[19:06] <AnAnt> micahg: ^
[19:06] <micahg> the 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 it
[19:13] <AnAnt> so "it might not choose to link in the future" due to DSO linking, right ?
[19:20] <AnAnt> micahg: done & submitodebian'ed !
[19:23] <micahg> AnAnt: not due to, but similar to
[19:32] <AnAnt> micahg: btw, xulrunner 1.9.2 will still be needed for the java support
[19:32] <micahg> AnAnt: nope
[19:33] <AnAnt> micahg: that got fixed already ?
[19:33] <micahg> it just needs the headers, we'll figure that out one way or the otehr
[19:33] <AnAnt> ah,
[19:33] <AnAnt> I just read Coulson's post now
[19:37] <AnAnt> Debian removed xulrunner
[19:37] <micahg> huh?
[19:37] <AnAnt> I mean the source package
[19:38] <AnAnt> I think it is provided by iceweasel now
[19:38] <AnAnt> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=594468
[19:38] <ubot2> Debian bug 594468 in ftp.debian.org "RM: xulrunner -- ROM; binary packages provided by other packages, now" [Normal,Open]
[19:41] <micahg> yeah, we did that a while back
[19:46] <AnAnt> well, got to leave, bye
[20:57] <chrisccoulson> bdrung - do you work on swt-gtk at all?
[22:04] <bdrung> chrisccoulson: no
[23:07] <magcius> micahg, did you fix the patch for FF4?
[23:17] <micahg> magcius: please refresh my memory
[23:17] <magcius> micahg, http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/firefox/firefox-trunk.head.daily/view/head:/debian/patches/firefox-profilename
[23:18] <micahg> ah, the Firefox-4.0 in the useragent? not eyt
[23:19] <magcius> micahg, no, the patch fails to apply elsewhere
[23:21] <magcius> Wait, hold on
[23:21] <magcius> I'm confused, looks like the package started building again
[23:22] <magcius> er, or now
[23:22] <magcius> or ont
[23:22] <magcius> NOT
[23:22] <magcius> see http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62659322/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-amd64.firefox-4.0_4.0~b10~hg20110122r61143%2Bnobinonly-0ubuntu1~umd1~maverick_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[23:24] <micahg> yeah, the dailies are slightly broke AT
[23:24] <micahg> ATM