| micahg | fta: that's fine, I'd prefer to keep changes like that only to major version bumps | 00:49 |
|---|---|---|
| fta | micahg, it's the idea, it will be 10->11 | 00:49 |
| fta | unless there's another 10 in between with security fixes | 00:50 |
| micahg | fta: right, well, last bump was only about 3 weeks ago, so I figure at least one more 10.x | 00:51 |
| micahg | fta: there's a new ioquake which might solve your issue, can I push to a test PPA for you or would you rather I push packages up to my p.u.c page? | 01:31 |
| [reed] | jcastro: well, I wore a Mozilla t-shirt today | 04:46 |
| [reed] | that's about it | 04:46 |
| [reed] | I had actual work to do :0 | 04:47 |
| kbrosnan | [reed]: aww in sv? | 05:03 |
| [reed] | by "sv", do you mean "silicon valley" or "sunnyvale"... note that my current employer is in palo alto :) | 05:04 |
| [reed] | kbrosnan: ^ | 05:05 |
| kbrosnan | the former | 05:05 |
| kbrosnan | in MV | 05:06 |
| [reed] | ? | 05:06 |
| kbrosnan | i'm in mv. | 05:07 |
| [reed] | ah, cool | 05:08 |
| [reed] | for how long? | 05:08 |
| kbrosnan | till August | 05:08 |
| [reed] | ah, awesome | 05:08 |
| kbrosnan | working with aakash and tony | 05:08 |
| kbrosnan | on mobile firefox | 05:08 |
| [reed] | I may come over Thursday for lunch | 05:08 |
| [reed] | I need to meet with some people | 05:09 |
| kbrosnan | i'm at @ 3rd floor near warp core most of the time | 05:09 |
| [reed] | you're more than welcome to come check out my work and eat lunch/dinner | 05:11 |
| [reed] | or come visit me in the city :) | 05:11 |
| linuxtech | Can we install firefox4 from the ppa and keep the old firefox with our profiles for 3.6.15 separate? | 06:29 |
| Dimmuxx | micahg: ah I didn't know that, thanks! | 06:48 |
| chrisccoulson | linuxtech, no, you can't do that | 07:11 |
| BUGabundo | o/ | 11:15 |
| bdrung | chrisccoulson: porting eclipse to use webkit would be cool | 11:53 |
| chrisccoulson | bdrung, the latest version can already use webkit | 11:53 |
| chrisccoulson | i was questioning the dependency on swt though, as i thought that eclipse had its own copy | 11:53 |
| fta | micahg, jdstrand_: fyi, security update of ch10 planed for tomorrow | 11:55 |
| fta | planed? planned? | 11:56 |
| fta | well, expected tomorrow | 11:56 |
| BUGabundo | hahahhhahahhahahhaahahahahahahah | 12:02 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: are language packs available for FF4 in the PPA? | 12:27 |
| chrisccoulson | mdeslaur, they're not unfortunately. it's pretty difficult for me to do that because the 3.6 translations are bundled with our language packs | 12:28 |
| chrisccoulson | i'm not sure how else to support that | 12:28 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: oh, hrm | 12:28 |
| chrisccoulson | ideas welcome ;) | 12:28 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: are there plans to update to 4.0 in maverick? | 12:28 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: yes, split them all out again :) | 12:28 |
| chrisccoulson | mdeslaur, yeah, i want to split them, so i can support translated builds in PPAs ;) | 12:29 |
| chrisccoulson | maverick probably won't get 4.0, but will get another version | 12:29 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: cool, thanks | 12:29 |
| mdeslaur | chrisccoulson: another version? seriously? I though we were doing rolling releases now? | 12:34 |
| chrisccoulson | mdeslaur, maverick will likely get 5.0 ;) | 12:34 |
| mdeslaur | oh, so they will still do some security fixes for 3.6? | 12:36 |
| chrisccoulson | mdeslaur, yeah, not sure for how long though | 12:42 |
| mdeslaur | I see | 12:43 |
| === m_conley_away is now known as m_conley | ||
| === jdstrand_ is now known as jdstrand | ||
| micahg | fta: ACK | 13:32 |
| gnomefreak | i guess we skipped tb32. do we have a build for enigmail for tb33? | 13:49 |
| micahg | gnomefreak: upstream skipped 3.2 | 14:00 |
| BUGabundo | http://slides.html5rocks.com/#speech-input nie | 14:05 |
| BUGabundo | *nice | 14:05 |
| gnomefreak | micahg: thanks | 14:07 |
| gnomefreak | this is odd. using minefield i get the following message "Your browser either doesn't support or you have disabled JavaScript." | 14:09 |
| gnomefreak | i have IcedTea-Web Plugin (using IcedTea-Web 1.1pre (1.1~20110320-0ubuntu1)) | 14:12 |
| gnomefreak | supporting LiveConnect/JavaScript. | 14:14 |
| gnomefreak | so either minefield or icedtea is screwed up | 14:14 |
| gnomefreak | or incompatible | 14:14 |
| gnomefreak | it is the same for official ff package in repos 4.0rc2 | 14:17 |
| gnomefreak | and chrome :( | 14:18 |
| fta | micahg, ch is now complaining our system flash is out dated :( | 14:21 |
| micahg | mdeslaur: ^^ | 14:23 |
| mdeslaur | fta: I'm currently working on flashplugin-nonfree updates...they should come out either this afternoon or tomorrow | 14:23 |
| mdeslaur | fta: our adobe-flashplugin packages are already released | 14:24 |
| fta | mdeslaur, what's the difference between those two? | 14:24 |
| mdeslaur | fta: adobe-flashplugin is in the partner repo...flashplugin-nonfree is in multiverse | 14:25 |
| fta | why maintain two? | 14:25 |
| mdeslaur | fta: adobe-flashplugin don't install on amd64, flashplugin-nonfree integrated with nspluginwrapper on amd64 | 14:25 |
| fta | oh | 14:25 |
| mdeslaur | fta: adobe won't let us ship the official packages (adobe-flashplugin) on amd64 | 14:25 |
| mdeslaur | AFAIK | 14:26 |
| gnomefreak | can someone please test this link. let me know if it says you have javascript disabled or not installed enigmail.mozdev.org/download/download-static.php.html | 14:26 |
| gnomefreak | wait adobe wont let us package and distribute falsh for 64bit? | 14:27 |
| gnomefreak | flash even | 14:27 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: I don't know the details...all I know is the "adobe-flashplugin" package in the partner repo doesn't install on amd64 | 14:28 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: I _assume_ they prefer it not be used on amd64 with the nspluginwrapper hack | 14:28 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: I don't actually know anything about that, so don't take anything I say seriously on that subject :) | 14:29 |
| gnomefreak | wait are you trying to use the 64bit package or the 32bit+nsplugin... | 14:29 |
| gnomefreak | iirc they still havent finished 64bit but they atleast have one | 14:29 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: thay have a preview version of the 64 bit one that doesn't get updated for security issues. We don't ship that. | 14:30 |
| gnomefreak | i didnt relize it was a prefiew i thought it was normal package. alot of people want the 64bit package included but i guess that is a bad idea atm | 14:31 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: yes | 14:32 |
| mdeslaur | gnomefreak: it's available in my PPA is anybody wants to install it at their risk | 14:32 |
| chrisccoulson | i wish they'd just release that, so we can bury nspluginwrapper in a very deep grave | 14:33 |
| BUGabundo | youtube html5 WIN! inf FF4 any video > right click "save as" > rick roll! | 15:29 |
| fta | doh! nice changelogs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-2d/+bug/724717/comments/11 | 20:24 |
| ubot2 | Launchpad bug 724717 in unity-2d "Indicators fail to load" [Critical,Fix released] | 20:24 |
| === m_conley is now known as m_conley_away | ||
| LLStarks | chrisccoulson, are you annoyed as i am with all of the ubuntuzilla, ppa, tarball madness. the entire ubuntu userbase comes down with a collective case of the derpes whenever a new fx comes out. | 20:55 |
| chrisccoulson | what do you mean? | 20:55 |
| LLStarks | it's not readily apparent to people that the stable ppa is the best solution | 20:58 |
| LLStarks | they dload the tarball: "wah, my fonts are ****ed" | 20:58 |
| LLStarks | they use ubuntuzilla: "what the hell is the /opt folder? where's the binary?" | 20:58 |
| chrisccoulson | well, ubuntuzilla is dead anyway | 20:59 |
| chrisccoulson | so that's 1 less option | 21:00 |
| chrisccoulson | and nothing annoys me (well, not much anyway) ;) | 21:00 |
| LLStarks | linux needs an instant-gratification way to install firefox with proper folder structure and linking | 21:00 |
| LLStarks | packagekit underdelivers | 21:00 |
| chrisccoulson | well, that's what PPA's and deb packages provide, no? | 21:01 |
| LLStarks | well, i don't see mozilla doing a deb/rpm repo | 21:01 |
| LLStarks | and the sru process for firefox takes too long | 21:01 |
| chrisccoulson | well, we don't follow the sru process for firefox | 21:02 |
| LLStarks | is there a fancy name or initialism i can use? | 21:03 |
| chrisccoulson | and we release security updates within a day of mozilla normally (hardly, "long") | 21:03 |
| chrisccoulson | and in future, we'll be pushing major updates out to all releases at the same time too | 21:03 |
| LLStarks | nice. | 21:04 |
| LLStarks | who is getting 4.0 btw? karmic, lucid, maverick, hardy? | 21:04 |
| chrisccoulson | karmic and lucid definitely aren't | 21:04 |
| chrisccoulson | oops | 21:04 |
| chrisccoulson | i meant karmic ;) | 21:04 |
| chrisccoulson | lucid and maverick most likely won't, but they will most likely get 5 | 21:04 |
| LLStarks | really? | 21:05 |
| chrisccoulson | but i have absolutely no idea of what mozilla's plans are for supporting 3.6, so i'm basing my prediction on the results of my crystal ball right now | 21:05 |
| LLStarks | isn't that a bit risky? i don't trust the new mozilla roadmap. | 21:05 |
| chrisccoulson | anything i tell you now is just a complete guess tbh | 21:06 |
| chrisccoulson | i don't know if 3.6 will be supported for 1 week, 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year, 10 years | 21:06 |
| LLStarks | would it be possible to issue a security update for all supported releases that changes the greyed out 'upgrade firefox' menu item into an add-apt-repository command that adds the stable ppa? | 21:08 |
| LLStarks | you'd avoid the issue of directly packaging for a release with the main archive | 21:09 |
| chrisccoulson | absolutely not. that wouldn't be a security update for a start | 21:10 |
| chrisccoulson | and where is that string visible? | 21:10 |
| chrisccoulson | we disable the updater, so there should be no menu item at all | 21:10 |
| chrisccoulson | (there isn't one here) | 21:10 |
| LLStarks | ah, it's gone. you used to be able to gksu firefox & | 21:11 |
| chrisccoulson | yeah, it's been gone for a long time ;) | 21:11 |
| LLStarks | but looking forward, is that a viable option | 21:11 |
| LLStarks | make the user assume all risk | 21:12 |
| chrisccoulson | not really, especially seeing as this won't be a problem in future (where we're pushing out major updates to all supported releases at the same time) | 21:12 |
| chrisccoulson | it will be just like chromium then ;) | 21:13 |
| LLStarks | ah, nice | 21:13 |
| LLStarks | this still the latest spec? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel | 21:14 |
| fta | chrisccoulson, chromium still suffers from n days in the security queue | 21:15 |
| fta | + delay | 21:15 |
| chrisccoulson | fta - hmm, waiting on armel and other arches by any chance? | 21:15 |
| fta | only partially, it's also waiting for human resources and testers | 21:16 |
| chrisccoulson | LLStarks, yeah, sort of. that's a bit out of date now, and we used that spec to drive 3.6 to all supported releases | 21:16 |
| fta | from what i can see | 21:16 |
| chrisccoulson | but we will be going 1 step further now | 21:16 |
| chrisccoulson | fta - hmmm, that's a pain. do you run the test-suite in chromium? (i think i've asked you this already) | 21:18 |
| chrisccoulson | i'd like the test-suite in firefox to reduce some of the human effort required to test :) | 21:18 |
| fta | i used to, for a long time, but i had to disable so many tests because of the build env restrictions that it didn't make sense anymore | 21:19 |
| chrisccoulson | fta - which sorts of restrictions? just network access or other restrictions? | 21:19 |
| fta | not to mention that it tooks hours to build, and even more hours to run | 21:20 |
| fta | yep, no network, no display, no input | 21:20 |
| fta | nowadays, it's also no GPU | 21:20 |
| chrisccoulson | fta - did you try xvfb for the display? | 21:20 |
| chrisccoulson | the network access is a pain | 21:21 |
| chrisccoulson | and do automated tests require input? i don't have an issue with that particularly | 21:21 |
| fta | sure, i had a long pipe with xvfb, timeout, gdb | 21:21 |
| fta | chrisccoulson, http://paste.ubuntu.com/584498/ | 21:23 |
| micahg | fta: the biggest delay on chromium ATM is the build time :) | 21:27 |
| fta | micahg, why do we even have to wait for arm? it's different in all matters, why not split the uploads | 21:31 |
| micahg | fta: not going to have 2 source packages for the same thing, the only reason we do it for openjdk is that the newer openjdk doesn't work with arm yet | 21:34 |
| fta | no, not 2 src packages, but upload once the 32/64 builds are tested | 21:35 |
| fta | that's what most of the users need | 21:35 |
| micahg | fta: I don't think we can split the publishing like that, jdstrand ^^ | 21:36 |
| fta | micahg, when we find something wrong with arm, we postpone the fix until the next upgrade anyway | 21:37 |
| micahg | fta: that depends on how badly the update is needed as well | 21:38 |
| fta | hot security fixes for the masses prevail over arm fixes | 21:38 |
| fta | well, until now at least | 21:38 |
| jdstrand | LP does not allow pocket copying of a build after the fact | 21:39 |
| jdstrand | eg, we publish i386 and amd64 then publish when arm is not done | 21:40 |
| jdstrand | arm is left out in the cold and needs a new source upload | 21:40 |
| jdstrand | we have skipped arm in the past for chromium with important fixes, fwiw | 21:40 |
| fta | tomorrow's update will also have a long list of hot fixes | 21:41 |
| fta | ..along with arm fixes from the previous upload :P | 21:48 |
| micahg | fta: heh, we'll play it by ear, but the earlier tomorrow the better as we generally don't like pushing out fixes on Friday | 21:49 |
| micahg | s/don't like/try to avoid/ :) | 21:49 |
| fta | not my call, i'm waiting for the upstream tag | 21:50 |
| micahg | fta: I understand, not trying to pressure you :) | 21:50 |
| fta | i have an idea of what it will be but i won't be sure until it's out | 21:50 |
| fta | micahg, libvpx 0.9.6 in natty is a security update, why isn't it in maverick and lucid? | 22:25 |
| micahg | fta: we generally patch stable releases vs full updates | 22:25 |
| fta | makes stuff hard to follow.. | 22:26 |
| micahg | fta: there's more than the one that was backported to 0.9.5? | 22:26 |
| fta | not sure | 22:26 |
| micahg | I don't see any open CVEs | 22:26 |
| fta | it seems it fixed at least cve-2010-4489 | 22:27 |
| ubot2 | fta: libvpx, as used in Google Chrome before 8.0.552.215 and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) via a crafted WebM video. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of a regression. (http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-4489) | 22:27 |
| micahg | fta: right, that was backported to 0.9.5-2 | 22:27 |
| micahg | and that was pushed to stable releases when chromium upped the build-dep | 22:28 |
| micahg | s/build-dep/dep | 22:28 |
| LLStarks | gfd firefox. it won't let me click certain links. | 23:42 |
| LLStarks | I WANT MY FIVE DAY FORECAST! | 23:42 |
| micahg | LLStarks: I'm using forecastfox w/out issue in firefox 4 | 23:46 |
| LLStarks | yeah, that's not it | 23:46 |
| LLStarks | i can't click on page links after the page loads | 23:46 |
| LLStarks | just the tabs and interface | 23:46 |
| LLStarks | i think shifting window focus unlocks it or something | 23:47 |
| LLStarks | yup. | 23:47 |
| LLStarks | okay, this sucks | 23:48 |
| LLStarks | can't click or highlight anything | 23:49 |
| LLStarks | no right-click | 23:49 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!