[10:52] chrisccoulson: is there any reason you mentioned 3.1.8 specifically in the postinst file for thunderbird? [11:01] fta: if you get a chance, can you look at debian 611725 to see if we need any of those patches? [11:01] * micahg guesses the bot is still gone [11:01] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611725 [11:50] micahg - are you referring to the folder->symlink migration? [11:50] chrisccoulson: yes [11:51] micahg - it was only needed for 3.1.8 [11:51] you can get rid of it now [11:51] chrisccoulson: right, but people upgrading from maverick, won't they need it as well? [11:52] micahg - no, because the install location changes, so the workaround isn't needed [11:52] chrisccoulson: ah, ok, right, makes sense, if I do the 3.1.9 upload, I'll drop it then [11:52] thanks [11:52] did you try the 3.3 dailies yet? [11:53] chrisccoulson: not yet, still have testing to do for 3.6.15 [11:53] (i put the alpha 2 build in to the thunderbird-next PPA too) [11:53] chrisccoulson: cool, I'm on natty now BTW [11:53] excellent [11:53] but running xubuntu :) [11:53] using unity? ;) [11:53] ah [11:54] I'll probably test unity at some point [11:54] yeah, we should all be testing it really ;) [11:55] * micahg doesn't like that xubuntu-desktop has to be removed to install ubuntu-desktop [11:55] micahg - i dropped the firefox-next bzr branch btw. i'm just going to take all of the firefox-next and thunderbird-next builds from trunk [11:56] it's easier than having 2 branches ;) [11:56] chrisccoulson: that won't work with m-c branching [11:56] that's ok, because branching only happens for release now [11:56] right, but what are we going to do for the mozilla-2.0 branch [11:57] nothing ;) [11:57] um... [11:57] the RC is bascially what will end up being the release (assuming no show-stoppers), so the next upload will be to the firefox-stable PPA [11:57] and the next upload to firefox-next will come from mozilla-central still (ff5~a1,or whatever) [11:58] right, so firefox-4.0.head become the firefox in teh dailes? [11:58] yeah, we should do that once firefox 4 is released [11:58] rc1 was tagged on mozilla-2.0 BTW [11:58] yeah, i'm just testing it now [11:58] k [11:59] the builds aren't don yet though (there's nothing on ftp.mozilla.org yet anyway) [11:59] **done [12:01] i guess we could have a firefox-next branch temporarily just to do RC builds for firefox-next now that mozilla-2.0 has branched [12:01] but for most uploads, it's easier just to have a single branch [12:01] chrisccoulson: if it's the same as you're uploading to natty, you can just use the firefox-4.0 branch I guess [12:02] yeah, the issue is that the source package name is different [12:02] ah, right [12:02] but the firefox-4.0 branch is what i'll use for firefox-stable [12:02] i guess we don't want firefox-stable to be parallel installable do we? [12:02] well, that's not how we had it before [12:03] I would think for stable people want the drop in replacement [12:03] yeah, that's what i was planning to do [12:03] that also means we get official branding, and one less reason for people to use ubuntuzilla [12:04] chrisccoulson: BTW, upstream is planning to force libxul and IPC in configure, are we ok with those changes? [12:04] heh [12:04] i saw that [12:04] doesn't work for all of our architectures though [12:04] (powerpc) [12:05] and i guess, other distro's that support more architectures are going to have more problems than us [12:05] right, so should we ask upstream not to force that? [12:05] we should probably fix powerpc tbh [12:05] we could raise it as an issue though [12:05] we currently turn off IPC on powerpc [12:05] chrisccoulson: maybe chat with glandium as Debian has to support it as well [12:05] yeah, i'll talk to him in the week [12:06] i'm going to try and keep on top of firefox-stable once 4.0 is released. i really don't want users downloading the ubuntuzilla packages [12:07] well, idk what the problem with 3.6.x was, we upload same or next day to -security the updates [12:07] i guess i need to test the upgrade paths this week from each release to the current natty branch [12:07] so people using firefox-next get a nice upgrade path [12:07] that would be nice :) [12:08] * micahg has to start working on the webkit upgrade this week [12:20] has anyone seen gnomefreak recently? [12:27] chrisccoulson: Feb 24 [12:27] hmmm, quite a long time ago [12:27] i guess I'll need to talk to IS then :/ [12:27] I hope everything is ok [12:28] yeah [12:28] have you tried e-mailing? [12:28] not yet [12:52] hi [12:54] micahg, could you please build the current chromium 10 beta on arm? it should be promoted to stable on Tuesday. it has the arm ftbfs fix and the changelog fix too [12:55] also, there's a problem with the html5 video tag. it's broken, i can't figure out why [12:56] oh, and the ch10 update is also a security update [12:57] fta: I'll upload to the u-m-s PPA in the mean time since my last arm build was OOM and took way too long [12:57] fta: the version will be higher on the promoted one, right? [12:58] fta: also, does it matter which release? [13:01] chrisccoulson: is the crash reporter working for thunderbird yet in natty? [13:01] micahg, yeah, it should be [13:01] hmm, it didn't actually crash, it was just hidden, good [13:03] micahg, i just need a test build. it will not be the exact same version/tarball. [13:04] fta: ok, do you care which release? [13:04] the arm flags are lucid vs post lucid [13:05] I'm tempted to do natty since it'll have all the deps [13:05] natty is fine [13:05] great [13:05] you can dget this one: https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/beta/+files/chromium-browser_10.0.648.127~r76697-0ubuntu1~ucd~beta2.dsc [13:05] I'm just copying from the PPA [13:06] \o/ no timeout [13:07] fta: hopefully we'll know in about 20 hours [13:08] cool [13:23] chrisccoulson, uhuh, seems my blog post about unity is popular [13:27] fta - "I never switched to Compiz (no benefits for my use case) and I would still be using Metacity if Unity was usable with it" - did you try unity-2d? [13:27] that runs with metacity [13:27] (but it also pulls in qt) [13:28] chrisccoulson, the thing in Maverick UNE? [13:28] fta - no, unity-2d is new for natty (it's in the archive now) [13:28] oh [13:29] up until last week, unity-2d was more feature complete than unity proper ;) [13:29] i will [13:29] i already have qt because of calibre and googleearth iirc [13:30] it's still a bit crashy tbh (just like unity), but it's pretty impressive considering it's not using compiz [13:30] oh, maybe I'll try unity w/out ubuntu-desktop [13:32] chrisccoulson, how do I switch? [13:33] fta - you need to select the 2D session option from GDM [13:33] grrr; it brings appmenu-gtk back [13:34] compiz is using boost, yuck [13:35] chrisccoulson, what's the w-m of unity 2d? metacity, mutter? [13:35] fta - it's using metacity [13:35] oohoh [13:35] \o/ [13:44] chrisccoulson, hm, no indicator at all [13:58] micahg, about the debian arm bug, it's about armv4t, we target v7 [13:59] chrisccoulson, how do I add the indicators & nautilus back in unity-2d? [14:24] (:13800): libindicator-WARNING **: File '/usr/lib/indicators/4/libapplication.so' does not exist. [14:24] $ dpkg -S libapplication.so [14:24] indicator-application: /usr/lib/indicators/5/libapplication.so [14:38] #6 0x065c65ad in fastGetOwnPropertySlot (this=0xbfa3cda8, exec=0xb3fff048, propertyName=..., slot=...) at ../3rdparty/javascriptcore/JavaScriptCore/runtime/JSObject.h:382 [14:38] oh my, Qt has its own JS JIT engine [14:38] and it's crashing [15:03] micahg, remainder, ch 10 needs libvpx 0.9.5+ [15:11] fta - sorry, i went away for lunch [15:11] fta - i wonder if nautilus is set to not draw the desktop in unity-2d? it used to be that way in the old unity [15:11] i'm not sure about the indicators though -they should just work [15:12] nope https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-2d/+bug/724717 [15:23] evo looks different in unity-2d [15:23] no more preview [15:23] but tabs instead [15:24] gasp, evo is totally broken [15:58] howdy [17:53] fta: Femme de ménage sexy Paris Lyon Lille Montpellier http://t.co/AAUgITv with ubuntu logo === BUGabundo is now known as BUGa_fewd [20:16] fta: that's why I wanted to build natty and thanks for checking the Debian bug [20:17] micahg, did you see about libvpx? [20:17] fta: yep, that was the first half of my comment ;) [20:18] also, the